Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02352/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOSPITALITY STAFFING 

SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALLSTARS STAFFING, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2352 KJM AC 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 The parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order (ECF No. 17), is 

APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 

decide the matter related to that request to seal. 

 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 

pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 

court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 

by Local Rule 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed by a 

written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. L.R. 141(a). However, a 

mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 141(b) requires 

Case 2:15-cv-02352-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 06/20/16 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

that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, 

the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the 

document, and all relevant information.” L.R. 141(b) (emphasis added). 

 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 

“compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 

related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir. 2016), petition 

for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. March 24, 2016) (No. 15-1211); Kamakana v. City and 

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 

certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 

court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 

 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 

the parties cannot informally resolve, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local 

Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex 

parte basis or on shortened time. 

 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 

approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 

and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 

 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 

of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 

 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 17) that is in conflict with anything 

in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 

DATED: June 20, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02352-KJM-AC Document 18 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2