From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
1:21-cv-01091-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01091-ADA-HBK

11-22-2022

MARIA TERESA GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(DOC. NO. 27)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the parties' motion for a stipulated protective order filed on October 28, 2022. (Doc. No. 27). The Court denies the motion for a protective order without prejudice.

The parties explain that a protective order is required because “[d]isclosure and discover activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose oth than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.” (Doc. No. 27 at 1-2). “Protected Material” is defined as “any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” (Id. at 3 ¶ 2.13). “‘CONFIDENTIAL' Information or Items” is defined as “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).” (Id. at 2, ¶ 2.2).

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).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties' motion for a stipulated protection order (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a stipulated protection order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c).


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 22, 2022
1:21-cv-01091-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus

Case Details

Full title:MARIA TERESA GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 22, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-01091-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022)