Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01063-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

TERRI S. O’NEAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-1063 FCD DAD

v.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

CORPORATION, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

The parties have proposed a joint agreed protective order that includes the

following provision regarding use of confidential information in court:

11. Use of Confidential Information in Court. The parties

have agreed, and the Court hereby grants permission, to file under

seal documents marked “Confidential” in connection with

discovery motions or other pre-trial motions or proceedings. A

party seeking to file such documents under such circumstances

shall file such documents in sealed envelopes or other

appropriately sealed containers on which shall appear the title of

the document AND a [sic] the following legend:

FILED UNDER SEAL - The enclosed materials are

subject to a Protective Order entered by the United

States District Court of the Eastern District of

California, Sacramento Division, in the case of

Terri O’Neal, Individually and as successor-ininterest to the Estate of Benjamin L. Bratt, and

Barry Bratt, Individually v. SmithKline Beecham

Corporation d/b/a/GlaxoSmithKline, et al., Case

No. 2:06-cv-01063. This envelope MAY NOT BE

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 141 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 4
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, however, have a right to protect from public disclosure information that 1

has been produced to another party in discovery but has not been filed with the court. Seattle

Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 & n.19, 37 (1984).

2

OPENED without court order by anyone other than

the Court, Court personnel, or the filing party’s

counsel of record. 

Joint Agreed Protective Order filed June 29, 2007, at 5.

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. See San Jose 1

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is wellestablished that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,

presumptively public.”). Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism

by which the parties may, in appropriate circumstances, propose means of protecting the claimed

confidentiality of information in certain documents filed in a specific case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

Protective orders pursuant to Rule 26(c) are intended to safeguard the parties and other persons in

light of the broad discovery rights authorized in Rule 26(b). United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d

364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982).

Whether or not a protective order is entered in any case is subject to the discretion

of the court. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (holding that Rule 26(c)

confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and

what degree of protection is required”); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th

Cir. 2002) (noting the district court’s “broad latitude to grant protective orders to prevent

disclosure of materials for many types of information”). A protective order will not be entered

absent a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210 (“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.”).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 141 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 4
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

A party’s desire for a protective order does not constitute good cause to bar the

public from access to litigation documents. Rather, the party seeking protection bears the burden

of showing specific prejudice or harm, including, with respect to individual documents,

particular and specific need for protection. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; San Jose Mercury

News, 187 F.3d at 1102-03. “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.

Stipulations and motions for entry of a protective order must (1) show a

particularized need for protection as to each individual document or piece of information

proposed to be covered by the order, (2) show why the need for protection should be addressed

by court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among parties, and (3) describe the

types of documents or information eligible for protection under the order, with the description

provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the types of documents or information. 

See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103 (holding that blanket stipulated protective orders

“are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting disclosure generally

has not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document”). 

The court will not enter a discovery order or protective order that enables the parties to designate

so much material as “confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. Nor will the

court approve an order giving blanket authority to the parties to designate what will be filed

under seal.

Here, the proposed joint agreed protective order would give the parties blanket authority

to designate documents to be filed under seal. In addition, the provision is not consistent with

the provisions of Local Rule 39-141. The request for entry of the proposed order will be denied

without prejudice to the submission of a joint agreed protective order that cures the defects of

paragraph 11. The parties may, of course, agree that any individual document to be filed with the

court that includes confidential information shall be submitted to the court either in redacted

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 141 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

form in conformity with Local Rule 39-140 or with a proposed sealing order in conformity with

Local Rule 39-141.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ June 29, 2007 request for entry of

the proposed joint agreed protective order, docketed as # 38, is denied without prejudice.

DATED: November 8, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.civil\oneal1063.mpo

Case 2:06-cv-01063-FCD-DAD Document 141 Filed 11/09/07 Page 4 of 4