Lessard, et al v. Trinity Protection Services, Inc.
Filing
100
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/17/11 ORDERING that the 99 Stipulated Protective Order is not approved. (Michel, G)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL LESSARD and ROBERT L.
REAGAN for themselves and on behalf
of all other similarly situate employees,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
18
No. 2:10-cv-01262 MCE KJN
v.
TRINITY PROTECTION SERVICES,
INC., a Maryland Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Presently before the court is the parties’ Confidentiality Agreement and
19
[Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order, which pertains to the production of materials designated
20
by the parties as “Highly Confidential Information.” (See Confidentiality Agmt. at 1, Dkt.
21
No. 99.) Although the parties apparently seek approval of the Confidentiality Agreement by the
22
court, the parties curiously included the following paragraph in their Confidentiality Agreement:
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred in good faith and agree
that a private agreement between the parties is appropriate at this
juncture (this “Agreement”) to adequately protect Defendant’s Highly
Confidential Information, the parties further agree that a stipulated
protective order may become necessary to protect Defendant’s Highly
Confidential Information and agree, in that event, that the parties will
jointly move this Court to enter this Agreement as a Stipulated Protective
1
1
Order (“Order”).
2
(Id. at 1:17-22 (emphasis added.) As a result of this paragraph, it appears to the undersigned that
3
the parties presently intend to enter into a private agreement concerning the production of
4
“Highly Confidential Information” and that the parties are not presently seeking approval of a
5
stipulated protective order. Thus, it is entirely unclear why the parties are seeking court approval
6
of the Confidentiality Agreement, which is presently drafted as a private agreement. Moreover,
7
even if the court were to consider the Confidentiality Agreement as seeking approval of a
8
proposed stipulated protective order, the Confidentiality Agreement does not make the showing
9
required by Local Rule 141.1(c). Specifically, it does not contain “[a] showing as to why the
10
need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement
11
between or among the parties.” E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). Indeed, the Confidentiality
12
Agreement makes the exact opposite showing.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Confidentiality
14
Agreement and [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 99), as presently drafted, is not
15
approved.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 17, 2011
18
19
20
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
]]>
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?
