Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01245/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01245-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAE DEAN STRAWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE SOKOLOFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01245-ADA-EPG

ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 41)

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF 

No. 41). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes 

that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” as follows:

information (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things 

that concern the City of Porterville, the City of Porterville Police Department, or 

any of its police officers and which may include but is not limited to, training

material, instruction manuals, business operation plans, practice, policy and 

procedure guidelines, and other documentation, records and reports dealing with or 

relating to the City of Porterville’s corporate practices or internal affairs and 

training of its officers.

(ECF No. 41, p. 2).1

1 For readability, the Court has made minor edits to punctuation and capitalization of some of the parties’ 

quotations without indicating each change. 

Case 1:22-cv-01245-KES-EPG Document 42 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Additionally, the parties provide a separate definition for “highly confidential” 

information:

Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” whose disclosure to 

another Party or nonparty would create a substantial risk or serious injury that 

could not be avoided by less restrictive means. This includes, but is not limited to, 

personnel files of City of Porterville employees and medical or psychological 

records, examinations, testing, or related information of City of Porterville 

employees and Plaintiff.

(Id. at 3). 

Such definitions deeming confidential (1) any information concerning the City of 

Porterville, the City of Porterville Police Department, or any of its police officers and (2) any 

information whose disclosure to another party or nonparty would create a substantial risk or 

serious injury that could not be avoided by less restrictive means improperly allows the parties to 

deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection 

and without ever disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 

141.1(c)(1) (requiring “[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)”). 

However, the parties also reference specific categories of information, e.g., instruction 

manuals, business operation plans, personnel files, and medical records that are sufficiently 

detailed to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ 

definition of confidential and highly confidential information to those categories specifically 

identified in the protective order. (ECF No. 41, pp. 2-3). 

Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 

personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 

established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 

discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See

ECF No. 41, p. 6; ECF No. 32, pp. 3-4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery 

conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the 

Court’s website).

Case 1:22-cv-01245-KES-EPG Document 42 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 41) 

is approved, in part, as revised above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01245-KES-EPG Document 42 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 3