Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00116/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00116-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

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

KAREN VICE,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-08-0116 GEB GGH

vs.

ESKATON VILLAGE RETIREMENT HOME, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

The parties have sought to have the court sign a protective order where documents

designated by the parties as “confidential,” or “highly confidential” are filed under seal pursuant

to California Rules of Court 2.551(b)(3)(A). The parties are reminded that their action has been

filed in federal court and is premised on federal law. Therefore, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Eastern District Local Rules apply. The law applicable to filing confidential

documents, although similar to the state rule cited by the parties, is set forth below.

Some protective orders enable the parties to designate so much material as

“confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. The protective order submitted by

the parties has the same potential problem. This court will not approve a protective order giving

blanket authority to the parties to designate what shall be filed under seal. Discovery information

disclosed in court filings generally is available to the public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.

Case 2:08-cv-00116-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 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

 A party may have the right to protect from public disclosure information which has 1

been produced to the other party only because of discovery and which has not been filed with the

court. Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 37, 104 S. Ct. 2199, 2207, 2209 (1984). 

2

United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (“[i]t is well-established that the

fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively

public”). 

1

Protective orders safeguard the parties and other persons in light of the otherwise

broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). The

court has great discretion to issue protective orders if discovery causes annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States,

596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Good cause, however, is required to obtain a protective order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2003); Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the

public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless

the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary”). 

 “Good cause” to bar the public from litigation documents must be more than

mere desire. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm, including, with

respect to individual documents, particular and specific need. Id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,

187 F.3d at 1102; W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 11:88. “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a

protective order is necessary.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211 (citing Glenmade Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (factors)). 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-00116-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, if the parties desire a protective order to be filed in this court, the

parties shall submit a protective order which permits a filing under seal only upon a

particularized showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/06/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

U.S. Magistrate Judge

GGH:076

Vice0116.po.wpd

Case 2:08-cv-00116-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 3