Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01283-3/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

 A party may have the right to protect from public disclosure information which has 1

been produced to the other party only because of discovery, and which has not been filed with the

court. Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984). Id. at 33, 37, 104 S. Ct.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON EUGENE DEOCAMPO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIV. NO. S-06-1283 WBS GGH 

vs.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The parties submitted on May 8, 2007, a proposed stipulation and order regarding

confidentiality and sealing of documents in this litigation, and agreeing to submit documents to

the court for in camera review.

I. Filing Documents Under Seal

Discovery information disclosed in court filings generally is available to the

public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th

Cir.1999) (“[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a

court order to the contrary, presumptively public”). 

1

Case 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK Document 40 Filed 05/14/07 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 at 2207, 2209.

2

Protective orders safeguard the parties and other persons in light of the otherwise

broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). The

court has great discretion to issue protective orders if discovery causes annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States,

596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Good cause, however, is required to obtain a protective order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2003); Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the

public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless

the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary”). 

 “Good cause” to bar the public from litigation documents must be more than

mere desire. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm, including, with

respect to individual documents, particular and specific need. Id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,

187 F.3d at 1102; W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 11:88. “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a

protective order is necessary.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211 (citing Glenmade Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (factors)). 

Some proposed protective orders enable the parties to designate so much material

as “confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. The protective order submitted

by the parties has the same potential problem. This court will not approve a protective order

giving blanket authority to the parties to designate what shall be filed under seal. Especially

inappropriate in the proposed protective order submitted herein is a requirement that any motion

to seal may be brought on shortened time.

Accordingly, the proposed protective order is disapproved, and will not be signed. 

Case 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK Document 40 Filed 05/14/07 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

 To the extent that no bona fide objections can or will be made, the documents should 2

simply be disclosed pursuant to an appropriate protective order.

3

Any further attempt to have the court enter a protective order shall contain provisions requiring a 

submission by the party attempting to have a particular document/filing submitted under seal

which demonstrates good cause for the document/filing sought to be sealed in whole or in part.

II. Documents to be Submitted for In Camera Review

The parties have stipulated to produce certain categories of documents to the court

for in camera review. They state that this court will then issue an order requiring any documents

subject to production to be produced to plaintiffs’ counsel by June 8, 2007, which is the

discovery cutoff. The parties have outlined the categories of documents which they stipulate will

be produced to the court; however, defendants have not framed objections, and neither party has

made an argument in favor of or against production. The court cannot frame an objection for a

party and then rule upon it.

The court will accept documents for in camera review; however, objections must

accompany the documents, and they must be bona fide objections, i.e., objections to which

defendants would be prepared to submit argument in support. Nominal or “for the record”

objections will not be accepted and will be grounds for sanctions. In light of the above, in

camera documents submitted to the court should be pared down as much as possible.2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The stipulated protective order, lodged May 8, 2007 is denied;

2. Defendants shall submit documents for in camera review within 15 days of

this order, along with applicable substantive objections.

DATED: 5/14/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Deocampo1283.pro.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK Document 40 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3