Opinion
1:22-cv-00931-AWI-EPG
01-03-2023
SUSAN LAWRENCE, Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 13)
On December 28, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated protective order for the Court's approval. (ECF No. 13). The stipulated protective order will be denied, without prejudice, because it does not comply with Local Rule 141.1 and other rules and procedures.
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)-(3), 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.
The parties' stipulated protective order defines confidential information to mean “information (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under California Law.” (ECF No. 13, p. 2). However, such a catchall description is not sufficient “in general terms [] to reveal the nature of the information” under LR 141.1(c)(1). For example, the parties do not generally identify “confidential” information to include, e.g., a customer list or some other descriptor to reveal the general type of information deemed confidential. Additionally, the parties fail to make a particularized showing as to need for protection as to any category of information to be covered by the order under LR 141.1(c)(2). Likewise, the parties do not discuss why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order as opposed to a private agreement.
Further, the Court notes that the proposed protective order cites various procedural rules that do not govern here. For example, the parties cite “Civil Local Rule 7” as governing “judicial intervention” in any dispute regarding their proposed protective order and “Civil Local Rule 79-5” as governing requests to seal materials. (ECF No. 13, pp. 6, 10). However, there is no “Civil Local Rule 7” or “Civil Local Rule 79-5” among the Court's Local Rules. Accordingly, should the parties file a future protective order, they shall make sure that it follows the Court's established rules and procedures. (See, e.g., LR 141 (requests to seal), 141.1 (protective orders), 251 (discovery motions); ECF No. 11, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and discovery motions); the Court's Standard Procedures (same) available on the Court's website at: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/EPG_Standard%20Procedures%20for%20Website_revised%2012_14_22.pdf).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulated protective order (ECF No. 13) is denied, without prejudice to filing a stipulated protective order that fully complies with the Court's established rules and procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.