Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00448/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00448-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAKAVIA MANAGEMENT CORP. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRANDON BIGELOW, et al.,

Defendants.

.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FIRST AMENDED 

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

(Doc. 119)

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 11, 2022, after their initial Stipulated Protective Order was denied without 

prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 141.1, the parties filed a second request seeking 

Court approval of their proposed First Amended Stipulation and Protective Order. (Doc. 119.) The 

Court has reviewed this proposed stipulated protective order and has determined that, in its current 

form, it again fails to comply with the Local Rules and cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulation and 

protective order.

A. The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

As with the parties’ initial proposed protective order, this proposed protective order does not 

comply with Rule 141.1(c)(1) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District 

of California. Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[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.” (emphasis added.) 

The First Amended Stipulation and Protective Order, in its current form, still does not 

comply with this requirement. It seeks to cover 

Case 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO Document 122 Filed 10/13/22 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

27

28

2

[A]ny information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes 

in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under 

applicable law. This material includes confidential, proprietary and private 

financial and personal information relating to the parties including but not limited 

to business accounts, trade secrets, balance sheets, accounting, loan information 

and related correspondence, and personal identifiable information.

(Doc. 119 at 3, emphasis added.) With its inclusion of the phrase “including but not limited to,” the 

proposed protective order fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires “[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.” Without any additional 

qualification to the phrase “including but not limited to” or the removal thereof, the proposed 

protective order does not sufficiently identify the types of information eligible for protection.

B. The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with 

Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) and corrects the deficiency set forth in this order.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of 

their proposed First Amended Stipulation and Protective Order (Doc. 119) is DENIED without 

prejudice to renewing the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO Document 122 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 2