Sanchez v. Target Corporation

Full title: SANDRA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 12, 2015

Case No. 1:14-cv-00761-SKO (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:14-cv-00761-SKO

02-12-2015

SANDRA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 19)

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2015, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Protective Order. (Doc. 19.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' request to approve the stipulated protective order.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

The proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:

(1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);



(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and



(3) A showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.

Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated proposed protective order fails to contain this required information.

The parties fail to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) which requires "[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order." The parties have articulate their need for protection in only the vaguest of terms, that the potential disclosure of these listed categories of documents "would have the effect of causing harm." (Doc. 19, 1.) No explanation is provided as to why a particularized need for protection is required. Likewise, Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show "why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties." The parties fail to address this requirement.

B. The Parties' Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' request for approval of the Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Protective Order (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12 , 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE