Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01070/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01070-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.S., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01070-KES-EPG

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 34)

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation1for the Court to approve their

proposed protective order. (ECF No. 34). Upon review, the Court will deny the parties’ request 

without prejudice because it does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules and the Court’s 

established practices. 

Among other things, the proposed protective order fails to address Local Rule 141.1(c), 

which sets out various requirements for a protective order. For example, the parties define 

“confidential information or items” to mean “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).” (ECF No. 34 at 2) (minor alterations). But this definition improperly allows the 

parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for 

protection without ever disclosing the types of information at issue contrary to Local Rule 

141.1(c)(1), which requires as follows: “A description of the types of information eligible for 

1 The proposed protective order was signed by Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Fresno only.

Case 1:23-cv-01070-KES-EPG Document 49 Filed 12/11/24 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

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).” 

Additionally, the scope the use of such material under the proposed order is unclear, as the 

section regarding its scope contains an incomplete sentence. See ECF No. 34 at 4) (“Any use of 

Protected Material at trial shall be governed.”)

Additionally, Exhibit A to the proposed order (“Acknowledgement and Agreement to be 

Bound”) states that the court with jurisdiction to enforce the protective order is the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 34 at 14). It is thus unclear if the 

parties are intending for the proposed protective order to apply in a judicial district other than the 

Eastern District of California where this action is proceeding. This is particularly so considering

the Acknowledgement and Agreement to be Bound omits the designation of the district judge 

assigned to this case. (Id.).

Lastly, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its personnel.” 

Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

June 29, 2017). As written, the proposed order would apply to this Court and its personnel. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 34 at 3 (defining “Non-Party” as “any natural person, partnership, corporation, 

association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action”) (emphasis added). As 

another example, the proposed order provides that if disclosure of Protected Material is ordered 

by a court in another action, the entity from whom disclosure is sought cannot produce the 

material without an order from that court, unless the other party consents. (ECF No. 34 at 9). 

Thus, to the extent this or any other provision of the proposed order would bind this Court or its 

personnel, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for the Court to approve their 

proposed protective order (ECF No. 34) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01070-KES-EPG Document 49 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2