Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00713-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH SAMUELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS 

CONTAINER INC. and DOES 1 through 

V,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0713 GEB DAD

ORDER

On February 11, 2014, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated protective order 

regarding the use of confidential information for the court’s consideration. That proposed 

stipulated protective order provides that “[a]ll documents” containing confidential information 

“shall be filed under seal” by placing the documents in sealed envelopes “on which it shall be 

endorsed” that “[t]his envelope is sealed pursuant to order of the Court . . .” (Proposed Stipulated 

Protective Order filed February 11, 2014 (Dkt. No. 16) at 3-4

1

.) 

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

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that 

the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively 

 

1

 Citations such as this one are to the page number reflected on the court’s CMECF system and 

not to the page number assigned by the parties.

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 02/14/14 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

27

28

2

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 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 

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 02/14/14 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

27

28

3

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”); 

Local Rule 141.1.

Here, the Court will not approve a protective order that provides blanket authority to the 

parties to file documents under seal. In this regard, the parties are advised that documents that are 

the subject of a protective order may be filed under seal only if a sealing order is first obtained. 

See Local Rule 141.1. A party seeking to obtain a sealing order shall comply with the provisions 

of Local Rule 141, which sets forth a specific procedure for seeking a sealing order. After 

compliance with Local Rule 141, the court will issue an order granting or denying the request to 

seal.

Moreover, it appears that the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order contemplates 

that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the stipulated protective order even 

after this lawsuit terminates. (Proposed Stipulated Protective Order filed February 11, 2014 (Dkt. 

No. 16) at 9.) Local Rule 141.1(f), however, provides that once the Clerk has closed an action, 

unless otherwise ordered, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of 

any protective order filed in that action. In their proposed protective order the parties have not 

addressed why the Court should deviate from this local rule of court in this case.

The parties’ request for entry of the proposed stipulated protective order will, therefore, be 

denied without prejudice to the submission of a stipulated protective order that cures these 

defects. The parties may, of course, agree that specific documents to be filed with the court that 

disclose information derived from documents containing confidential information shall be 

submitted to the court either in redacted form in conformity with Local Rule 140 or with a request 

to seal documents and proposed sealing order in conformity with Local Rules 141 and 141.1.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 02/14/14 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

27

28

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ February 11, 2014 request for entry of the 

proposed stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 16) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: February 13, 2014

DDAD:6

Ddad1\orders.civil\samuels0713.stip.protord.den.docx

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 4