Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01680-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN 

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:20-cv-01680-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 32)

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 19, 2021, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their stipulated 

protective order. (Doc. 32.) 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

(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.

Case 1:20-cv-01680-SKO Document 33 Filed 07/21/21 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

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.” The protective order, in its current form, does not comply with this 

requirement. (See, e.g., Doc. 32 at 3 (defining eligible material for protection as “information that, 

if disclosed, would cause injury to its business or business relationships with others; that contain 

trade secrets or other confidential and non-public research, development or commercial information; 

that contain non-public personal information; or that contain other information for which a good 

faith claim of the need for protection from disclosure can be made under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or other applicable law” or that which “(i) . . . contains or reflects confidential information 

that comprises highly sensitive technical, business or research information regarding products or 

services, and (ii) the information is so commercially sensitive that disclosure to the opposing party 

is likely to cause competitive harm to the Designating Party.”).)

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

most general terms. (See, e.g, Doc. 32 at 1–2.) 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.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of 

Case 1:20-cv-01680-SKO Document 33 Filed 07/21/21 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

the stipulated protective order (Doc. 32) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court further notes that the parties did not email an electronic copy of the stipulated protective order, as required 

by E.D. Cal. Local Rule 137. Should the parties renew their request, they shall send an electronic version of the proposed 

order in Microsoft Word format to SKOorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Case 1:20-cv-01680-SKO Document 33 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 3