Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02353/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02353-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE N. GORDON, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2353 MCE DAD

v.

LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

The parties have proposed a stipulated protective order that includes the following

provision for filing material under seal:

10. FILING PROTECTED MATERIAL UNDER SEAL

The Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under seal all

documents, transcripts and other material filed with this Court in

this litigation which are, in whole or in part, designated as

CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY. The person filing such material

shall designate to the Clerk that all or a designated portion thereof

is subject to this Order and is to be kept under seal, except that

upon the default of the filing Party to so designate, any Party may

do so.

Proposed Stipulated Protective Order filed July 9, 2007, at 10 ¶ 10.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02353-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 11/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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, however, have a right to protect from public disclosure information that 1

has been produced to another party in discovery but has not been filed with the court. Seattle

Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 & n.19, 37 (1984).

2

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. See San Jose 1

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is wellestablished that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,

presumptively public.”). Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism

by which the parties may, in appropriate circumstances, propose means of protecting the claimed

confidentiality of information in certain documents filed in a specific case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

Protective orders pursuant to Rule 26(c) are intended to safeguard the parties and other persons in

light of the broad discovery rights authorized in Rule 26(b). United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d

364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982).

Whether or not a protective order is entered in any case is subject to the discretion

of the court. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (holding that Rule 26(c)

confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and

what degree of protection is required”); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th

Cir. 2002) (noting the district court’s “broad latitude to grant protective orders to prevent

disclosure of materials for many types of information”). A protective order will not be entered

absent a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

331 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210 (“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.”).

A party’s desire for a protective order does not constitute good cause to bar the

public from access to litigation documents. Rather, the party seeking protection bears the burden

of showing specific prejudice or harm, including, with respect to individual documents,

particular and specific need for protection. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; San Jose Mercury

Case 2:06-cv-02353-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 Paragraph 5.2(b), as proposed, provides that every deposition transcript must be treated 2

as confidential for ten days after receipt and any party who files the deposition or testimony from

the deposition during that ten-day period must file the material under seal. Proposed Stipulated

Protective Order at 5 ¶ 5.2(b). This provision must also be modified. 

3

News, 187 F.3d at 1102-03. “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.

Stipulations and motions for entry of a protective order must (1) show a

particularized need for protection as to each individual document or piece of information

proposed to be covered by the order, (2) show why the need for protection should be addressed

by court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among parties, and (3) describe the

types of documents or information eligible for protection under the order, with the description

provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the types of documents or information. 

See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103 (holding that blanket stipulated protective orders

“are inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting disclosure generally

has not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document”). 

The court will not enter a discovery order or protective order that enables the parties to designate

so much material as “confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. Nor will the

court approve an order giving blanket authority to the parties to designate what will be filed

under seal.

Here, the proposed stipulated protective order would give the parties blanket

authority to file material under seal. The request for entry of the proposed order will be denied

without prejudice to the submission of a stipulated protective order that cures this defect. The

parties may, of course, agree that any documents to be filed with the court that constitute or

contain protected material shall be submitted to the court either in redacted form in conformity

with Local Rule 39-140, if appropriate, or with a proposed sealing order in conformity with Local

Rule 39-141.2

Case 2:06-cv-02353-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 11/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ July 9, 2007 request for entry of a

stipulated protective order (#38) is denied without prejudice.

DATED: November 9, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.civil\gordon2353.mpo

Case 2:06-cv-02353-MCE -DAD Document 60 Filed 11/13/07 Page 4 of 4