Green v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Filing
14
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/21/11 ORDERING that the 13 Stipulation for Protective Order is not approved, but without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed stipulated protective order if the parties are unable to reach a private agreement. (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
MARGARET A. GREEN,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:10-cv-02658 GEB KJN
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
14
Defendant.
15
16
ORDER
/
Presently before the court is the parties’ “Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement
17
and Protective Order” (“Stipulated Protective Order”), which seeks an order limiting the use and
18
dissemination of certain, identified documents. (Dkt. No. 12.) The undersigned does not
19
approve the proposed Stipulated Protective Order as drafted because it does not conform to the
20
requirements of Eastern District Local Rule 141.1.
21
This court’s Local Rule 141.1(c) provides:
22
(c)
Requirements of a Proposed Protective Order. All
stipulations and motions seeking the entry of a protective order shall be
accompanied by a proposed form of order. Every proposed protective
order shall contain the following provisions:
23
24
25
26
(1) A description of the types of information eligible for
protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms
sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list,
formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);
1
1
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to
each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and
2
3
(3) A showing as to why the need for protection should
be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between
or among the parties.
4
5
E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)-(3). Although the Stipulated Protective Order makes the showing
6
required by subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Local Rule 141.1, it does not contain any provision
7
addressing “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a
8
private agreement between or among the parties.” E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). Because the
9
parties have not made the showing required by Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), the undersigned does not
10
approve the Stipulated Protective Order as presently drafted. However, the parties may either
11
enter into a private agreement or file a proposed stipulated protective order that meets all of the
12
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules.
13
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’
14
“Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order” is not approved, but without
15
prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed stipulated protective order if the parties are
16
unable to reach a private agreement.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 21, 2011
19
20
21
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
