Langley v. Central Credit Control
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/15/2011 ORDERING 15 that the parties' proposed Stipulated 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. (Reader, L)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROBIN LANGLEY,
11
12
Plaintiff,
No. 2:10-cv-03060 MCE KJN
v.
13
SENTRY CREDIT, INC.,
14
Defendant.
ORDER
/
15
16
Presently before the court is the parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order,
17
which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination of information that the parties seek to
18
designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” information” (Dkt. No. 15).
19
The undersigned does not approve the proposed Stipulated Protective Order as drafted because it
20
does not conform to the requirements of this court’s Local Rule 141.1. The Stipulated Protective
21
Order raises an additional concern identified below.
22
This court’s Local Rule 141.1(c) provides:
23
(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:
24
25
26
(1) A description of the types of information eligible for
protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms
1
1
sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list,
formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);
2
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to
each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and
3
4
(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.
5
6
E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c). Although the Stipulated Protective Order arguably makes the
7
showing required by subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Local Rule 141.1, it does not contain any
8
provision addressing “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as
9
opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3).
10
Thus, the parties have not made the showing required by Local Rule 141.1(c), and the
11
undersigned does not approve the Stipulated Protective Order as proposed. However, the parties
12
may either enter into a private agreement or file a proposed stipulated protective order that meets
13
all of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules.
14
The undersigned addresses one additional aspect of the proposed Stipulated
15
Protective Order that the undersigned is not inclined to approve. Paragraphs 25 suggests that this
16
court will retain jurisdiction over the Stipulated Protective Order and any disputes arising
17
therefrom after this action has concluded.1 The undersigned is strongly disinclined to approve
18
any provision that creates such retained jurisdiction over the Stipulated Protective Order and
19
related disputes after termination of the action.
20
////
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
25
26
1
Local Rule 141.1(f) provides: “Once the Clerk has closed an action, unless otherwise
ordered, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any
protective order filed in that action.” E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(f).
2
1
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ proposed
2
Stipulated Protective Order is not approved, but without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient
3
proposed stipulated protective order if the parties are unable to reach a private agreement.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 15, 2011
6
7
8
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
