Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

SAMI MITRI,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALGREEN CO. IN C. , d b a

WALGREENS; and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-SKO

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

On December 15, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding

confidential discoverymaterials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective

order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the

stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R.

141.1(c), any proposed 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 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/17/10 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

Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the

need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. If the

parties would like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a

stipulation and proposed order that comply with L.R. 141.1(c). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties shall refile a revised proposed protective order that contains a showing

as to why the need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to

a private agreement as set forth in L.R. 141.1(c); 

2. The parties shall email a conforming copy of the stipulation and proposed order to

skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov; 

3. Any proposed order submitted to skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov should contain the

electronic signatures of counsel; and

3. If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court

order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for

a protective order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/17/10 Page 2 of 2