Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02694/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02694-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

 A party may have a right to protect from public disclosure information that has been 1

produced to another party in discovery but has not been filed with the court. Seattle Times Co. v.

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 & n.19, 37 (1984).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE MARIE FILITI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2694 WBS DAD

v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

The parties’ proposed stipulated protective order includes the following provision:

7. FILING PROTECTED MATERIAL.

Documents designated as “Protected Material” pursuant to

this Protective Order shall be filed under seal pursuant to General

Local Rule 39-141(a) and (c). No Request to Seal or Motion to

File a Document Under Seal under General Local Rule 39-141(b)

and (d) is required.

Proposed Stipulated Protective Order filed Jan. 28, 2008, ¶ 7.

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. See San Jose 1

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is wellCase 2:06-cv-02694-WBS -DAD Document 50 Filed 02/08/08 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

2

established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,

presumptively public.”). Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism

by which the parties may, in appropriate circumstances, propose means of protecting the claimed

confidentiality of information in certain documents filed in a specific case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

Protective orders pursuant to Rule 26(c) are intended to safeguard the parties and other persons in

light of the broad discovery rights authorized in Rule 26(b). United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d

364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982).

Whether or not a protective order is entered in any case is subject to the discretion

of the court. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (holding that Rule 26(c)

confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and

what degree of protection is required”); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th

Cir. 2002) (noting the district court’s “broad latitude to grant protective orders to prevent

disclosure of materials for many types of information”). A protective order will not be entered

absent a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210 (“Generally, the public can

gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless the party

opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.”).

A party’s desire for a protective order does not constitute good cause to bar the

public from access to litigation documents. Rather, the party seeking protection bears the burden

of showing specific prejudice or harm, including, with respect to individual documents,

particular and specific need for protection. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; San Jose Mercury

News, 187 F.3d at 1102-03. “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a

protective order is necessary.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211.

Stipulations and motions for entry of a protective order must (1) show a

particularized need for protection as to each individual document or piece of information

Case 2:06-cv-02694-WBS -DAD Document 50 Filed 02/08/08 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

3

proposed to be covered by the order, (2) show why the need for protection should be addressed

by court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among parties, and (3) describe the

types of documents or information eligible for protection under the order, with the description

provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the types of documents or information. 

See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103 (holding that blanket stipulated protective orders

“are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting disclosure generally

has not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document”).

This court will not enter a discovery order or a protective order that enables the

parties to designate so much material as “confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are

sealed. Nor will the court approve an order giving blanket authority to the parties to designate

what will be filed under seal. Here, the stipulated protective order proposed by the parties would

give the parties blanket authority to designate documents to be filed under seal.

The parties’ request for entry of the proposed stipulated protective order will be

denied without prejudice to the submission of a stipulated protective order that cures this defect. 

The parties may, of course, agree that specific documents to be filed with the court that disclose

information derived from documents containing confidential information shall be submitted to

the court either in redacted form in conformity with Local Rule 39-140 or with a proposed

sealing order in conformity with Local Rule 39-141.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ January 28, 2008 request for entry

of the proposed stipulated protective order (#49) is denied without prejudice.

DATED: February 7, 2008.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.civil\filiti2694.mpo

Case 2:06-cv-02694-WBS -DAD Document 50 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 3