Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01518-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

JAVIER ANGEL MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF TULARE, CALIFORNIA, 

and MICHAEL BOURDREAUX,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01518-HBK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. No. 14)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated 

protective order filed on April 6, 2023. (Doc. No. 14). The Court denies the request, without 

prejudice, because the proposed protective order does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules. 

More specifically, the proposed protective order does not define with any specificity what 

materials are protected. Notably, the term “confidential” is defined as follows:

‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items: 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).

(Doc. No. 14 at 1, ¶ 2.2). Similarly, “PROTECTED MATERIAL” is defined as “any Disclosure 

or Discovery material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.’” (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 2.13). Such 

language is too broad and not compliant with this Court’s Local Rules. Specifically, Eastern 

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

the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-01518-HBK Document 15 Filed 04/07/23 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

[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 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.) 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). 

The parties have failed to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c). The parties have included a 

catchall description of confidential information and such description is not sufficient “in general 

terms [] to reveal the nature of the information” under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Further, 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. 

Id.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 14) 

is DENIED, without prejudice, to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local 

Rule 141.1(c). 

Dated: April 7, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01518-HBK Document 15 Filed 04/07/23 Page 2 of 2