Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02257/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02257-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

ROBERT ANDREAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE'S HIW, INC., a Washington

corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02257-LJO-SKO

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding

confidential discoverymaterials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective

order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the

stipulation and proposed order do not comply with new Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R.

141.1(d), any proposed 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.

Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the

Case 1:09-cv-02257-LJO -SKO Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 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

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

parties would like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a

stipulation and proposed order that complies with L.R. 141.1(d). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that

complies with L.R. 141.1(d). 

2. If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court

order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for

a protective order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-02257-LJO -SKO Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2