Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02558/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02558-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eurofins Air Toxics, Inc.
Defendant
Fauzia Moqadam
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAUZIA MOQADAM, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-2558 GEB KJN

v.

EUROFINS AIR TOXICS, INC.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Presently before the court is the parties’ Stipulation for Protective Order and

Proposed Protective Order which seeks approval of an order governing the treatment of discovery

materials that the parties intend to designate as “Confidential Information.” (Dkt. No. 10). At

the present time, the undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order, but

will consider a revised proposed stipulated protective order that addresses the court’s concerns

identified below. 

In particular, it is unclear from the proposed stipulated protective order whether

the parties intend that the marking of material as “Confidential Information” pursuant to the

protective order would automatically result in the sealing of such materials filed with the court. 

(See, e.g., Dkt. No. 10 at 3-4, ¶ 6.) The sealing of documents is never automatic, and the parties

are required to file a request to seal in accordance with the Eastern District Local Rules,

1

Case 2:12-cv-02558-TLN-KJN Document 11 Filed 01/04/13 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

including Local Rule 141, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned

recommends that the parties consider including a provision to that effect in any revised proposed

stipulated protective order. 

Additionally, the parties are advised that the undersigned is strongly disinclined,

absent some compelling reason, to approve any provision that creates retained jurisdiction over a

stipulated protective order and related disputes after termination of the action. Local Rule

141.1(f) provides: “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.” 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(f). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ proposed stipulated

protective order (dkt. no. 10) is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the refiling of a

revised proposed stipulated protective order that addresses the court’s concerns outlined above.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 3, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-02558-TLN-KJN Document 11 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2