Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00511-1/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

MARY F. POOLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KASTNER INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL,

et al.,

Defendants

 

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00511-KJM-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUEST

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 16)

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 28, 2015, the parties filed stipulation for entry of a protective order governing 

the production of confidential information. (Doc. 16.) The Court has reviewed the joint proposed 

protective order and has determined that, in its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for 

a protective order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the parties' motion without 

prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Parties Fail to Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

The joint proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1(c) 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:

Case 1:15-cv-00511-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/01/15 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

(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.

Local Rule 141.1(c). The joint proposed protective order fails to contain this required 

information. The parties do not identify information eligible for protection in terms sufficient to 

reveal the nature of the information. Specifically, the parties state that anything may be marked 

confidential under the protective order if it qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c). (Doc. 16, § 2.2.)

The proposed protective order also 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." No explanation is provided as to why a particularized need 

for protection is required. Likewise, Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show "why 

the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement 

between or among the parties." The parties fail to address this requirement. 

B. The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

The parties may re-file a revised joint proposed protective order that complies with Local 

Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion for a protective 

order (Doc. 16) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00511-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2