Wride v. Fresno Cnty.

Full title: JAMES LYNN WRIDE, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 18, 2012

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00486-AWI-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00486-AWI-SKO PC

07-18-2012

JAMES LYNN WRIDE, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Sheila K. Oberto

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL

(Doc. 126)

I. Introduction

Plaintiff James Lynn Wride, a state prisoner, filed this civil action pro se on April 13, 2005. Plaintiff subsequently obtained counsel and this action for damages is currently proceeding on Plaintiff's third amended complaint against Defendants County of Fresno, Burrows, Heggen, Kamlade, Snyder, and Sutakul for violation of Plaintiff's civil rights while he was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff alleges claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and California tort law.

On July 16, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation regarding a protective order for certain documents to be produced in response to Plaintiff's request for the production of documents, set one. (Doc. 126.) The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective order and has determined that it fails to meet the requirements of Local Rule 141.1. Therefore, the request shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal.

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c) of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, any proposed 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).

In this instance, the stipulation and proposed order does not set forth information in compliance with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) and (3). These deficiencies should be readily curable and the parties may amend and refile their stipulation and proposed order.

III. Order

Accordingly, the parties' stipulated request for a protective order is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to amendment and renewal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE