G Ray Kerciu v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; The Court has received and considered the parties Joint Stipulation Regarding Confidential Material (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 Court will not agree to the procedure the parties propose to resolve a violation of the protective order. Third, the Court will not agree to the procedures the parties propose for the resolution of challenges to designations. Fourth, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good cause. 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
11
12
13
14
15
G. RAY KERCIU, individually, and )
on behalf of a class of
)
similarly situated individuals, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
NO. CV 11-03472 SJO (SSx)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
16
17
The
Court
has
received
and
considered
the
parties’
“Joint
18
Stipulation Regarding Confidential Material” (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, ¶ 1).
The parties may submit a revised
2
stipulated protective order, but must correct this deficiency.
3
4
Second, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties
5
propose to resolve a violation of the protective order.
(Protective
6
Order at 5, ¶ 11).
7
confidential material may be punishable by contempt of Court in addition
8
to any other remedies available to a party.”
9
review violations brought to the Court’s attention and fashion the
The parties propose that “[t]he improper use of
10
appropriate remedy under the circumstances.
11
(Id.).
The Court will
The Court will not agree
to specific remedies prior to any violation.
12
13
Third, the Court will not agree to the procedures the parties
14
propose for the resolution of challenges to designations.
15
Order at 6, ¶ 12).
16
matter, the parties must strictly comply with the Central District’s
17
Local
18
stipulation containing all issues in dispute.
19
2.1.
20
out in Local Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2. C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.1, 37-2.2. The
21
Court will not consider the dispute unless the stipulation or a
22
declaration from the moving party describing how the opposing party
23
failed to cooperate in formulating the stipulation is timely filed. See
24
C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.4.
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
Rule
37.
(Protective
Before seeking court intervention in any discovery
Both
parties
must
timely
file
a
written
joint
C.D. Cal. R. 37-2, 37-
The form and preparation of this stipulation are expressly laid
2
1
Fourth, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good
2
cause.
3
amended 2010) (“The relevant standard [for the entry of a protective
4
order] is whether good cause exists to protect the information from
5
being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery
6
against the need for confidentiality.” (internal quotation marks and
7
alteration omitted)); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
8
1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis requires
9
examination of good cause (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307
10
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir., as
F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)).
11
12
The Court may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good
13
cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176
14
(9th Cir. 2006) (stipulating to protective order insufficient to make
15
particularized showing of good cause, as required by Rule 26(c));
16
Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good
17
cause for a protective order);
18
187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders
19
require good cause showing).
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,
20
21
In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,
22
the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry
23
of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information
24
described in the order.
25
specifically described and identified.
26
statement of good cause should be preceded by the phrase: “GOOD CAUSE
27
STATEMENT.” The parties shall articulate, for each document or category
The documents to be protected shall be
28
3
The paragraph containing the
1
of documents they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that
2
will result if no protective order is entered. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.
3
4
Fifth, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery
5
documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the
6
caption: “[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H.
7
Segal].”
8
9
Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional
10
guidance regarding protective orders. This information is available in
11
Judge
12
Schedules.” (See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb08
13
0863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/0141b1bcd8ee7f8488256bbb00542959?OpenDocu
14
ment).
Segal’s
section
of
the
link
marked
“Judges
Procedures
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 12, 2011
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
