Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00166/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00166-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY REID, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00166-AWI-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE PARTIES' 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 13)

On October 1, 2013, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding 

confidential discovery materials. In its current form, the parties' stipulated request cannot be 

granted because the stipulation and proposed order do not comply with the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of California's Local Rule 141.1.

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), any proposed order submitted by the parties must 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 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.

Case 1:13-cv-00166-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 10/11/13 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

Here, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the need for 

protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. The Court also 

notes that the exhibit attached to the protective order references the Superior Court of California. 

The parties also failed to electronically submit a proposed order to the Court with their stipulated 

request, as required by Local Rule 137(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' request for a stipulated 

protective order is DENIED without prejudice to refiling in conformity with Local Rules 141.1 

and 137(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00166-DAD-SKO Document 14 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 2