From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary Sch.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
1:21-cv-00436-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00436-AWI-HBK

11-22-2022

DAISY BUENO, individually and as guardian ad litem of S.B., a minor, guardian ad litem, S.B., Plaintiff, v. BASS LAKE JOINT UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING

(Doc. No. 47)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the parties' motion for stipulated protective order filed on November 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 47). The Court denies the motion without prejudice.

The parties' stipulated protective order defines “Confidential” as “any information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law.” (Id. at 2, ¶1.c.). Such language is too broad and not compliant with the local rules.

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective order 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.” (paragraph breaks omitted, emphasis added.)

Having reviewed the proposed protective order, the Court finds that it does not comply with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). The catchall language used in describing the types of information eligible for protection does not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). The parties also have not made a showing of particularized need for protection as to each category or explained why a court order is necessary, as opposed to a private agreement between the parties. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). The Court further notes that procedural mechanisms exist to ensure that sensitive and personal information is withheld from public disclosure. See e.g. E.E. v. Norris School District, Case No. 1:20-cv-1291-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. 2020) (Doc. No. 57, Order Granting Joint Request to Seal Administrative Record).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties, motion for a stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c).


Summaries of

Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary Sch.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
1:21-cv-00436-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary Sch.

Case Details

Full title:DAISY BUENO, individually and as guardian ad litem of S.B., a minor…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 22, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-00436-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)