Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANE VARIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRINCIPAL NATIONAL LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00051-NODJ-EPG

ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 21)

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF 

No. 21). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes 

that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” as follows: 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), and as specified above in the Good Cause 

Statement.” (ECF No. 21, p. 4).1

Such definition improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as 

they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c) and without ever disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 

141.1(c)(1) (requiring “[a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under

1 For readability, the Court has made minor edits to punctuation and capitalization of some of the parties’ 

quotations without indicating each change. 

Case 1:23-cv-00051-NODJ-EPG Document 22 Filed 12/11/23 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

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)”). 

However, the parties also reference specific categories of information, e.g., underwriting 

guidelines, claims manuals and procedures, and company manuals in their Good Cause Statement 

that are sufficiently detailed to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court will 

limit the parties’ definition of confidential information to those categories specifically identified 

in this section. (ECF No. 21, p. 2). 

Additionally, 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). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 

established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 

discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See

ECF No. 21, p. 7; ECF No. 11, p. 4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences 

and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s 

website).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 21) 

is approved, in part, as revised above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00051-NODJ-EPG Document 22 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 2