Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-00511-KJM-SKO
09-01-2015
MARY F. POOLE, Plaintiffs, v. KASTNER INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Docket No. 16)
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 28, 2015, the parties filed stipulation for entry of a protective order governing the production of confidential information. (Doc. 16.) The Court has reviewed the joint proposed protective order and has determined that, in its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the parties' motion without prejudice.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Parties Fail to Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)
The joint proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any proposed protective 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);Local Rule 141.1(c). The joint proposed protective order fails to contain this required information. The parties do not identify information eligible for protection in terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information. Specifically, the parties state that anything may be marked confidential under the protective order if it qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. 16, § 2.2.)
(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 proposed protective order also fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires "[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order." No explanation is provided as to why a particularized need for protection is required. Likewise, Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show "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 fail to address this requirement.
B. The Parties' Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
The parties may re-file a revised joint proposed protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion for a protective order (Doc. 16) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 1 , 2015
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE