Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01823/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01823-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dameron Hospital Association
Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Defendant

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1823 MCE AC 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 14), is 

APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 

decide the matter related to that request to seal. 

 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 

pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 

court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 

by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only 

be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local 

Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, 

Case 2:15-cv-01823-MCE-AC Document 15 Filed 01/18/17 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

Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons 

to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) 

(emphasis added). 

 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 

“compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 

related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 

 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 

certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 

court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 

 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 

the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced 

materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local 

Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex 

parte basis or on shortened time. 

 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 

approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 

and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 

 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 

of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 

 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 14) that is in conflict with anything 

in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 

DATED: January 17, 2017 

Case 2:15-cv-01823-MCE-AC Document 15 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 2