Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00361/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00361-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH BONENFANT, an individual,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-00361 FCD KJN

v.

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,

a corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, 

inclusive,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently before the undersigned is the parties’ “Stipulation Re: Confidentiality

and Protective Order Governing Production Or Other Discovery of Portions of Standard

Insurance Company’s Claims Manual,” which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination

of information that the parties seek to designate as, among other things, confidential. (Dkt.

No. 14.) The undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order as drafted

because it does not conform to the requirements of Eastern District Local Rule 141.1. 

This court’s Local Rule 141.1(c) provides:

(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: 

Case 2:10-cv-00361-KJM-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

(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); 

(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to

each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and 

(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.

E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c). Although the parties’ stipulated protective order makes the

showing required by subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Local Rule 141.1, it does not contain any

provision addressing “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as

opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). 

Accordingly, the undersigned will not approve the stipulated protective order as proposed. 

However, the parties may either reach a private agreement or file a proposed stipulated protective

order that meets all of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s

Local Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’

“Stipulation Re: Confidentiality and Protective Order Governing Production Or Other Discovery

of Portions of Standard Insurance Company’s Claims Manual” (Dkt. No. 14) is not approved, but

without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed stipulated protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00361-KJM-KJN Document 15 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 2