Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-00963-SKO
07-26-2016
ISABEL BELMONTEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA SOUTH; DOES 1 through , Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. 24)
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 22, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulated Protective Order. (Doc. 24.) 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 protective order fails to contain this required information.
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires "[a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order[.]" The protective order, in its current form, does broadly identify the types of information eligible for protection. (See Doc. 24, p. 1 (limiting the scope of the protective order to "any non-public confidential or non-public proprietary information that Defendants so designate pursuant to a right of privacy (third-party, financial and personal information), proprietary information, trade secret, and information and documents deemed confidential").)
The protective order, however, fails to identify the parties' need for protection in anything but the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order also fails 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."
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current form, the protective order does not show "why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties." 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 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 24) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26 , 2016
/s/ Sheila K . Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE