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)
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?