Herroz v. City of Manteca et al
PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/5/2022. (Coll, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERESA HERROZ, an individual,
No. 2:22-cv-00245 KJM AC
CITY OF MANTECA, a municipal entity,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 16), is
APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will
decide the matter related to that request to seal.
2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential
pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the
court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed
by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only
be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local
Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular,
Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or
other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons
to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b)
3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that
“compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially
related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.”
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th
4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of
certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the
court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion.
5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which
the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced
materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local
Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex
parte basis or on shortened time.
6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s
approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation
and proposed order for the court’s consideration.
7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement
of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated.
8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 16) that is in conflict with anything
in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 5, 2022
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?