Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00695-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

(Doc. 85)

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 28, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their 

Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement. (Doc. 85.) 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

Case 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SKO Document 87 Filed 11/29/16 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

(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.

Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.

Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) 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 (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” While 

the protective order, in its current form, adequately specifies the types of information eligible for 

protection as “Attorneys Eyes Only,” it does not describe the types of information eligible for 

protection as “Confidential Information” in even the most general of terms. (See Doc. 85, p. 1

(defining “Confidential Information” as “non-public, confidential or proprietary financial, 

technical, commercial, or personal information that is contained or disclosed in any materials 

governed by this Order and designated by a producing party or person in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in Section 2 of this Order.”)).

The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but 

the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to 

the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with 

Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to 

each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”

Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current 

form, the protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a 

court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”

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 deficiencies set forth in this order.

//

//

//

//

Case 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SKO Document 87 Filed 11/29/16 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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of the 

Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement (Doc. 85) is DENIED without 

prejudice to renewing the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SKO Document 87 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3