Opinion
2:23-cv-00053-MMD-EJY
10-20-2023
OLIVER ZACARIAS-MEJIA, Plaintiff, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, a Nebraska Insurance Company; and DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the proposed Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 36). The proposed order fails to comply with local rules requiring a document seeking a judge's signature to be filed as a stipulation or joint order and the filing party must select the proper event on CM/ECF so that the matter comes before the judge. This did not happen when ECF No. 36 was filed. Further, the proposed protective order does not address how the parties will resolve issues related to the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of attorney client privilege information, work product or other confidential materials. Paragraph VII(1) of the proposed order presumes that confidential information may be filed under seal. This is contrary to the law. Heath v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02869-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 12311995, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2019) citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (reliance on a blanket protective order, without more, does not make a showing of good cause for sealing documents). Filing of provisionally sealed documents must also comply with Local Rule IA 10-5.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 36) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit a revised proposed stipulated protective order correcting all deficiencies identified above.