Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01130/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01130-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDOVAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01130-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 60)

On April 27, 2022, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 60). The 

Introduction Section states:

1. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of 

confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 

public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 

litigation may be warranted. 

2. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to the following Stipulated Protective 

Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 

protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 

affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 

items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 

principles. 

3. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Stipulation and 

Order creates no entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and that 

Eastern District Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 

and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 

the court to file material under seal.

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 61 Filed 05/02/22 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

(ECF No. 60, p. 1).

In the definition section, “Confidential Information or Items” is defined as “information 

(regardless of the medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 

for protection under standards developed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and/or 

applicable federal privileges.” (Id. at 2).

Having reviewed the Stipulated Protective Order, the Court finds that it does not comply 

with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c), which requires that every proposed 

protective order 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.” 

(paragraph breaks omitted). Here, the stipulation does not provide a description of the types of 

information eligible for protection or a provision showing a particularized need for protection as 

to each category.

Accordingly, the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 60) is DENIED, without 

prejudice to the parties refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 

141.1(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01130-KES-EPG Document 61 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2