Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BAKER, and UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-1540-ADA-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. No. 124)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated 

protective order filed on December 7, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 124, 124-1). The Court denies the 

request, without prejudice, because the proposed protective order does not comply with the 

Court’s Local Rules. 

More specifically, the proposed protective order does not define exactly what materials 

are protected. Notably, the term “confidential” is defined as follows:

‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items: information (regardless 

of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 

qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

(Doc. No. 124-1 at 1, ¶2.2). Similarly, “PROTECTED MATERIAL” is defined as “any 

Disclosure or Discovery material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.’” Such language is 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 125 Filed 12/08/22 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

too broad and not compliant with the local rules. Specifically, Eastern District of California 

Local Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective order contain the following: 

[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.” 

(paragraph breaks omitted.) 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). 

The parties have failed to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c). The parties have included a 

catchall description of confidential information and such description is not sufficient “in general 

terms [] to reveal the nature of the information” under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Further, the 

parties also have not made a showing of particularized need for protection as to each category or 

explained why a court order is necessary, as opposed to a private agreement between the parties. 

Id.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 

124) is DENIED, without prejudice, to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with 

Local Rule 141.1(c). 

Dated: December 8, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 125 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 2