BLK Brands LLC v. Blackwater Innovations Corp et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be overbroad. Second, the proposed Protective Order fails to include an adequate statement of good cause. The parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order for the Courts consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for 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
16
17
BLK BRANDS LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company,
)
)
)
Plaintiff, Counter)
Defendants and Third- )
Party Defendants,
)
)
v.
)
)
BLACKWATER INNOVATION CORP., a
)
Canadian Corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants, Counter)
Claimants and Third)
Party Plaintiffs.
)
)
NO. CV 11-06378-GW (SSx)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
18
19
The Court has received and considered the parties’ “Joint Proposed
20
Protective Order” (the “Protective Order”).
The Court is unable to
21
adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the
22
following reasons:
23
24
First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be
25
overbroad.
Therefore, the documents, information, items or materials
26
that are subject to the protective order shall be described in a
27
meaningful and specific fashion (for example, “personnel records,”
28
“medical records,” or “tax returns,” etc.).
Here, the parties define
1
confidential information as “information contained or disclosed in any
2
materials, regardless of how generated, stored or maintained, including
3
documents, portions of documents, answers to interrogatories, responses
4
to requests for admissions, testimony from previous trials, deposition
5
testimony, transcripts of depositions, and trial transcripts from
6
previous trials, including data, summaries, and compilations derived
7
therefrom that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil
8
Procedure 26(c).”
9
does not clearly place the parties or the Court on notice of the
(Protective Order at 2-3, ¶ 2.2).
This definition
10
specific documents covered by the proposed protective order.
11
the
12
CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” definitions are also overbroad.
13
(Protective Order at 6, ¶ 5.4(a) and (b)).
14
protective order must be particularly defined and described.
15
requirement applies with even greater force to those documents subject
16
to a "Counsel's Eyes Only" restriction, because the order would place
17
even greater restriction on the use of such documents.
18
the parties' and the Court's interest to specifically define and
19
describe such documents, or to omit such a restriction if it is not yet
20
known to be necessary.
21
protective order, but must correct this deficiency.
definition
is
overbroad.
The
“CONFIDENTIAL”
and
As such,
“HIGHLY
The documents subject to a
This
Thus, it is in
The parties may submit a revised stipulated
22
23
Second, the proposed Protective Order fails to include an adequate
24
statement of good cause.
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331
25
F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis
26
requires examination of good cause) (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors
27
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002); San Jose Mercury
28
News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.
2
1
1999); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
2
Cir. 1992).
3
4
The Court may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good
5
cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176
6
(9th Cir. 2006) (parties must make a “particularized showing” under Rule
7
26(c)’s good cause showing for court to enter protective order);
8
Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good
9
cause for a protective order);
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,
10
187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders
11
require good cause showing).
12
13
In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,
14
the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry
15
of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information
16
described in the order.
17
cause should be preceded by a heading stating: “GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT.”
18
The parties shall articulate, for each document or category of documents
19
they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that will result
20
if no protective order is entered.
21
omitted).
The paragraph containing the statement of good
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (citations
22
23
In addition, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties
24
propose for resolving disputes.
25
Before seeking court intervention in any discovery matter, the parties
26
must
27
including the letter and meet and confer requirements set forth in L.R.
28
37-1.
strictly
comply
with
the
(Protective Order at 11, ¶ 7.3).
Central
District’s
Local
Rule
37,
Both parties must timely file a written joint stipulation
3
1
containing all issues in dispute.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2, 37-2.1.
The
2
form and preparation of this stipulation are expressly laid out in Local
3
Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2. C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2.1, 37-2.2. The Court will
4
not consider the dispute unless the stipulation or a declaration from
5
the moving party describing how the opposing party failed to cooperate
6
in formulating the stipulation is timely filed.
7
2.4.
See C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-
8
9
The Court advises the parties that all future discovery documents
10
filed with the Court shall include the following in the caption:
11
“[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal].”
12
13
Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional
14
guidance regarding protective orders. This information is available in
15
Judge
16
Schedules.” (See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb08
17
0863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/0141b1bcd8ee7f8488256bbb00542959?OpenDocu
18
ment).
19
Protective Order for the Court’s consideration.
Segal’s
section
of
the
link
marked
“Judges
Procedures
The parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed]
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
&
DATED: February 17, 2012
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
