Reed v. County of Placer et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 1/27/2025 DECLINING to enter the 24 Proposed Protective Order. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLE DENISE REED, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:24-cv-02152-DJC-SCR ORDER CITY OF ROCKLIN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second stipulation and proposed order for protective order. 18 ECF No. 24. The proposed order is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). 19 The parties previously submitted a stipulation and proposed order on January 7, 2025. ECF No. 20 22. The Court entered an order informing the parties that the proposal was overbroad. The 21 proposed order purported to protect all “Discovery Material,” and that term was defined in an 22 overbroad manner. ECF No. 22 at ¶ 2.2. The order informed the parties that they could submit a 23 revised stipulation that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 141.1(c). 24 Local Rule 141.1(c) sets forth the requirements for a proposed protective order. Every 25 proposed protective order “shall contain”: 1) a description of the types of information eligible for 26 protection under the order; 2) a showing of particularized need for protection as to each category 27 of information proposed to be covered by the order; and 3) a showing as to why the need for 28 protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement among the 1 1 parties. The parties’ second proposed protective order (ECF No. 24) has removed the definition 2 of “Discovery Material” from paragraph 2.2 and replaced it with “Confidential.” However, the 3 proposed order then continues to refer to the term “Discovery Material” throughout. For 4 example, paragraph 3 provides the scope of the order is to cover “all Discovery Material 5 disclosed during the course of this litigation.” ECF No. 24 at ¶ 3. The proposed order refers to 6 “Discovery Material” seven times, even though it is no longer a defined term in the proposed 7 protective order. The second proposed order also does not address all the requirements of Local 8 Rule 141.1(c). The first two paragraphs do provide a brief description of the types of information 9 the order seeks to protect; however, the proposed order does not address the “particularized need 10 for protection as to each category of information” or why the need for protection should be 11 addressed by court order, rather than private agreement. 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Court declines to enter the proposed protective order 13 for the reasons set forth herein. The parties may submit a revised stipulation and proposed 14 protective order that addresses the Court’s concerns and complies with Local Rule 141.1(c). 15 SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: January 27, 2025 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?