Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00436-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAISY BUENO, individually and as 

guardian ad litem of S.B., a minor, 

guardian ad litem, S.B.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS LAKE JOINT UNION 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00436-AWI-HBK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING

(Doc. No. 47)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ motion for stipulated protective order filed on 

November 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 47). The Court denies the motion without prejudice.

The parties’ stipulated protective order defines “Confidential” as “any information which 

is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is 

entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law.” (Id. at 2, ¶1.c.). Such language is too 

broad and not compliant with the local rules. 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective 

order 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 

Case 1:21-cv-00436-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 11/22/22 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

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.” (paragraph 

breaks omitted, emphasis added.) 

Having reviewed the proposed protective order, the Court finds that it does not comply 

with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). The catchall language used in describing 

the types of information eligible for protection does not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). The 

parties also have not made a showing of particularized need for protection as to each category or 

explained why a court order is necessary, as opposed to a private agreement between the parties. 

Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). The Court further notes that procedural mechanisms exist to ensure that 

sensitive and personal information is withheld from public disclosure. See e.g. E.E. v. Norris 

School District, Case No. 1:20-cv-1291-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. 2020) (Doc. No. 57, Order Granting 

Joint Request to Seal Administrative Record).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties, motion for a stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED without 

prejudice to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c). 

Dated: November 22, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00436-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 2