Shirley Bazurto v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; The Court has received and considered the parties stipulated 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, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good cause. Second, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties propose for challenges to the designation of mat erials under the Protective Order. Third, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the caption: [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal]. 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
SHIRLEY BAZURTO, an individual, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
)
Delaware corporation; ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
NO. CV 11-06252 ODW (SSx)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
16
17
The Court has received and considered the parties’ stipulated
18
“Protective Order” (the “Protective Order”).
The Court is unable to
19
adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the
20
following reasons:
21
22
First, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good
23
cause.
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir., as
24
amended 2010) (“The relevant standard [for the entry of a protective
25
order] is whether good cause exists to protect the information from
26
being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery
27
against the need for confidentiality.” (internal quotation marks and
28
alteration omitted)); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
1
1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis requires
2
examination of good cause (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307
3
F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)).
4
5
The Court may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good
6
cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176
7
(9th Cir. 2006) (stipulating to protective order insufficient to make
8
particularized showing of good cause, as required by Rule 26(c));
9
Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good
10
cause for a protective order);
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,
11
187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders
12
require good cause showing).
13
14
In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,
15
the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry
16
of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information
17
described in the order.
18
specifically described and identified.
19
statement of good cause should be preceded by the phrase: “GOOD CAUSE
20
STATEMENT.” The parties shall articulate, for each document or category
21
of documents they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that
22
will result from the disclosure of those particular documents if no
23
protective order is entered.
The documents to be protected shall be
The paragraph containing the
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.
24
25
Second, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties
26
propose for challenges to the designation of materials under the
27
Protective Order.
28
intervention in any discovery matter, the parties must strictly comply
(Protective Order at 3, ¶ 9).
2
Before seeking court
1
with the Central District’s Local Rule 37.
Both parties must timely
2
file a written joint stipulation containing all issues in dispute. C.D.
3
Cal. R. 37-2, 37-2.1.
4
expressly laid out in Local Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2.
5
2.1, 37-2.2.
6
stipulation or a declaration from the moving party describing how the
7
opposing party failed to cooperate in formulating the stipulation is
8
timely filed.
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.
9
10
Third, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery
11
documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the
12
caption: “[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H.
13
Segal].”
14
15
Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional
16
guidance regarding protective orders. This information is available in
17
Judge
18
Schedules.” (See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb08
19
0863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/0141b1bcd8ee7f8488256bbb00542959?OpenDocu
20
ment).
Segal’s
section
of
the
link
marked
“Judges
Procedures
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
DATED: September 12, 2011
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
3
&
]]>
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?
