Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00500-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

A.G. & F.G., minors, by and through their 

guardian ad litem Johana Yolanda Corral 

Galvan,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TULARE COUNTY,

Defendant.

.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATION AND 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 13)

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 15, 2023, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulation and 

Protective Order. (Doc. 13.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective order and 

has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated protective order.

II. DISCUSSION

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

The proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any proposed 

protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:

(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.

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/16/23 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

Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.

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.” The protective order, in its current form, does not comply with this 

requirement. (See, e.g., Doc. 13 at 2 (defining confidential information as “information (regardless 

of how it is generated, store or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).”); see also id. (“Examples of confidential information 

include, but are not limited to, the following: [listing categories].”).

The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but the 

most general terms. (See, e.g., Doc. 13 at 2 (“Purposes and Limitations”).) As the parties do not 

present any particularized need for protection as to the identified categories of information to be 

protected, the protective order fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] 

showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be 

covered by the order.”

Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current form, 

the protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court 

order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” 

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) and corrects the deficiencies 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 stipulated protective order (Doc. 13) is DENIED without prejudice subject to renewal of the 

request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00500-JLT-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 2