Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01832/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01832-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 1

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

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT SACRAMENTO

CODY MOSS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF CHICO, CITY OF CHICO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS D. 

AMENT and C. UEBELHARDT and 

DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01832-SB

ORDER DENYING THE 

PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Protective Order Re: 

Disclosure of Confidential Information, ECF No. 9. 

The parties ask the Court to sign a Protective Order that was drafted and 

agreed to by the parties. It is this Court’s practice to not enter general Protective 

Orders that simply set forth the parties’ agreement for handling “confidential” 

materials.

The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, though Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits a district court to override this 

presumption upon a showing of “good cause.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 

U.S. District Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:16-cv-01832-SB Document 12 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 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

27

1999). Rule 26(c) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to 

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense.” Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must 

certify it has “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an 

effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis 

added).

The parties are free to contract between themselves regarding disclosure of 

information produced in discovery, and pursue appropriate remedies in the event 

of breach; however, the Court will not be party to such an agreement. A court 

issued protective order is less necessary since Rule 5(d) was amended to only 

require filing discovery material actually used in support of an action. Because not 

all discovery material need be filed, most discovery material is not readily 

accessible to the public. Therefore, the primary concern regarding confidential 

materials is how the parties themselves handle such material. This Court will not 

hesitate to issue a protective order when it is necessary; however, the moving party 

or parties must demonstrate good cause exists and must bear the “burden of 

showing specific prejudice or harm” that will result if no protective order is 

granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). In other 

words, the moving party must demonstrate why the parties cannot resolve the issue 

without court action—a standard that will generally not be met when the parties 

agree to the terms of a proposed protective order.

The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will 

result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to be in 

agreement on what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be 

handled. Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion for protective order.

//

//

//

Case 2:16-cv-01832-SB Document 12 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 3

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

27

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties’ Joint Stipulation for Protective Order Re: Disclosure of 

Confidential Information, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 

and forward copies to counsel. 

DATED this 5th day of December, 2016.

 _______________________________

 Stanley A. Bastian

 United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01832-SB Document 12 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 3