Irina Gaal et al v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; The Court has received and considered the parties Joint Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order (the Protective Order). The Court is unable to adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the following reasons: First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be overbroad. Second, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good cause. Third, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties propose for challenges to the designation of materials under the Protective Order. See order for further details. (jy)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
IRINA GAAL, ET AL.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC., ET AL.,
14
Defendants.
15
NO. CV 11-02119 GHK (SSx)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
16
17
The
Court
has
received
and
considered
the
parties’
“Joint
18
Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order” (the “Protective Order”).
19
The Court is unable to adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by
20
the parties for the following reasons:
21
22
First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be
23
overbroad.
24
that are subject to the protective order shall be described in a
25
meaningful and specific fashion (for example, “personnel records,”
26
“medical records,” or “financial information,” etc.).
27
language
28
Therefore, the documents, information, items or materials
used
to
describe
the
protected
documents
The current
is
overbroad.
1
(Protective Order at 2, ¶ 2).
The parties may submit a revised
2
stipulated protective order, but must correct this deficiency.
3
4
Second, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good
5
cause.
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir., as
6
amended 2010) (“The relevant standard [for the entry of a protective
7
order] is whether good cause exists to protect the information from
8
being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery
9
against the need for confidentiality.” (internal quotation marks and
10
alteration omitted)); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
11
1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis requires
12
examination of good cause (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307
13
F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)).
14
15
The Court may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good
16
cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176
17
(9th Cir. 2006) (stipulating to protective order insufficient to make
18
particularized showing of good cause, as required by Rule 26(c));
19
Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good
20
cause for a protective order);
21
187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders
22
require good cause showing).
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,
23
24
In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,
25
the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry
26
of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information
27
described in the order.
28
specifically described and identified.
The documents to be protected shall be
2
The paragraph containing the
1
statement of good cause should be preceded by the phrase: “GOOD CAUSE
2
STATEMENT.” The parties shall articulate, for each document or category
3
of documents they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that
4
will result from the disclosure of those particular documents if no
5
protective order is entered.
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.
6
7
Third, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties
8
propose for challenges to the designation of materials under the
9
Protective Order.
(Protective Order at 6, ¶ 11).
Before seeking court
10
intervention in any discovery matter, the parties must strictly comply
11
with the Central District’s Local Rule 37.
12
file a written joint stipulation containing all issues in dispute. C.D.
13
Cal. R. 37-2, 37-2.1.
14
expressly laid out in Local Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2.
15
2.1, 37-2.2.
16
stipulation or a declaration from the moving party describing how the
17
opposing party failed to cooperate in formulating the stipulation is
18
timely filed.
Both parties must timely
The form and preparation of this stipulation are
C.D. Cal. R. 37-
The Court will not consider the dispute unless the
See C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.4.
19
20
Fourth, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery
21
documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the
22
caption: “[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H.
23
Segal].”
24
25
Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional
26
guidance regarding protective orders. This information is available in
27
Judge
28
Schedules.” (See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb08
Segal’s
section
of
the
link
3
marked
“Judges
Procedures
&
1
0863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/0141b1bcd8ee7f8488256bbb00542959?OpenDocu
2
ment).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
DATED: September 19, 2011
7
8
9
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
