Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01695-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karl Anderson
Defendant
City of Hanford
Defendant
City of Hanford Police Department
Defendant
James Edlund
Defendant
Gabriel Jimenez
Defendant
Patrick Jurdon
Plaintiff
James Lutz
Defendant
Parker Sever
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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 STATED DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 21, 2024, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulation 

and Protective Order. (Doc. 22). The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective 

order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated 

protective order.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), any proposed protective 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

PATRICK JURDON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF HANFORD; CITY OF HANFORD 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; PARKER SEVER, in 

his individual and official capacity; GABRIEL 

JIMENEZ, in his individual capacity; JAMES 

LUTZ, in his individual capacity; KARL 

ANDERSON, in his individual capacity; JAMES 

EDLUND, in his individual capacity; and Does 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01695-KES-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATION FOR ENTRY 

OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Case 1:23-cv-01695-KES-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 2
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

(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.

Local Rule 141.1(c). 

The parties’ order, in its current form, does not satisfy Rule 141. The proposed protective 

order does not provide a description of the type of information eligible for protection in a way 

that is sufficient to reveal the nature of the information. (See, e.g., Doc. 22 at 2 (defining 

confidential information as “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) 

or tangible things in the possession of a Designating Party who believe in good faith that such 

information qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).”).) At most, 

the proposed protective order “extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 

to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles,” though it is unclear what kind of 

information the parties’ are seeking to protect. The parties also fail to identify a “particularized 

need for protection,” and why that “the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, 

as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” Without this information, the 

Court cannot grant the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 22), and it will be denied without prejudice. The 

parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 

141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval 

of their stipulated protective order (Doc. 22) is DENIED without prejudice subject to renewal of 

the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01695-KES-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 2