Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00644-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

KARLA BADAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KINGS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:20-cv-00644-NONE-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 42)

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 18, 2021, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulated 

Protective Order. (Doc. 42.) 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 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 43 Filed 02/23/21 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). 

In setting forth the information eligible for protection, the proposed protective order

provides: “These confidential documents include, but are not limited to: [¶] 1. Plaintiff’s medical 

records, including any and all mental health care records, evaluations, and notes; [¶] 2. Probation 

reports; [¶] 3. Documents pertaining to any child sexual abuse investigations, including the 

investigation of abuse allegations concerning [F.V.], [G.B.], and [K.B.][;] [and] [¶] 4. Medical 

Reports pertaining to alleged sexual abuse victims.” (Doc. 42 at 2, emphasis added.) The protective 

order, with its inclusion of the phrase “but are not limited to,” fails to comply with Local Rule 

141.1(c)(1), which 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.” Without any additional qualification to the phrase “but are not limited to” or the 

removal thereof, the proposed protective order does not sufficiently identify the types of information 

eligible for protection. 

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 deficiency set forth in this order.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of 

the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 42) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00644-KES-SKO Document 43 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 2