Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02620/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02620-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

CHARLES NAGEL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-02620 FCD KJN

v. ORDER

ADI SHUTTLE GROUP, LLC,

and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive,

Defendant. 

 /

Presently before the undersigned is the parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed]

Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 15.) At the present time, the undersigned will not approve the

proposed stipulated protective order, but will consider a revised proposed stipulated protective

order that addresses the court’s concerns identified below. 

First, provision F.3 of the proposed stipulated protective order states: “This order

will be governed by California law.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 6:3.) In general, protective orders and

discovery in general are governed by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26. As written, provision F.3 is unclear with respect to the scope of the application of California

law to the protective order sought. The undersigned will not approve the stipulated protective

order with the current version of provision F.3 in place because, at a minimum, it is susceptible

to a reading that the parties are attempting to stipulate to the inapplicability of the Federal Rules

Case 2:09-cv-02620-FCD-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/07/10 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

of Civil Procedure. The undersigned recommends that the parties reconsider the scope of

provision F.3 and either: (1) strike provision F.3; or (2) redraft provision F.3 in a manner that

more clearly and appropriately describes how the protective order sought by the parties will be

governed by California law.

Second, it is unclear from the proposed stipulated protective order whether the

parties intend that the marking of material as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order

would automatically result in an order sealing such materials filed with the court. The parties are

required to file a request to seal in accordance with the Eastern District Local Rules, including

Local Rule 141, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned recommends that the

parties consider adding a provision to this effect in any revised proposed stipulated protective

order.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned denies the parties’ request for approval of

the proposed stipulated protective order. However, this denial is without prejudice to the filing a

revised stipulation and proposed protective order that addressed the concerns highlighted above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02620-FCD-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2