Osterkamp v. Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER signed by District Judge Stanley A Bastian on 2/23/17 ORDERING that the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 16 , is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT OSTERKAMP, an individual, 9 10 NO. 2:16-cv-02064-SB Plaintiff, v. 11 BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 13 d/b/a TRANSFIELD SERVICES INC. 14 d/b/a TIMEC INC.; and DOES 1-25, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 16. The 18 parties seek a protective order to protect confidential, proprietary, and private 19 information. This motion was heard without oral argument. 20 The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, though Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits a district court to override this 22 presumption upon a showing of “good cause.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 23 U.S. District Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 24 1999). Rule 26(c) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to 25 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 26 burden or expense.” Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must 27 certify it has “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an 28 ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 1 1 effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis 2 added). Where the parties agree, as here, that certain information should remain 3 4 confidential, it may be prudent to enter into an agreement setting forth in writing 5 what information shall remain private. It is unnecessary, however, for such an 6 agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur. A court issued protective order is less 7 necessary since Rule 5(d) was amended to only require filing discovery material 8 actually used in support of an action. Because not all discovery material need be 9 filed, most discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the 10 primary concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves 11 handle such material. This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when 12 it is necessary; however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause 13 exists and must bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will 14 result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 15 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why 16 the parties cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will 17 generally not be met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective 18 order. 19 The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will 20 result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to be in 21 agreement on what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be 22 handled. Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion for protective order. 23 The Court encourages the parties to continue cooperating with respect to the 24 handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. The parties may, upon proper 25 showing tied to specific discovery material, move the Court to seal certain 26 discovery filings. 27 // 28 // ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 16, is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 4 file this Order and provide copies to counsel. 5 DATED this 23rd day of February, 2017. 6 7 8 _______________________________ Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?