Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01695-1/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 July 23, 2024, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulation 

and Protective Order. (Doc. 26). The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective 

order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted for the same reasons the 

Court denied the parties’ previous stipulation and protective order (Docs. 22, 24). Accordingly, 

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 

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 27 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 3
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

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.

Local Rule 141.1(c). 

The parties’ order, in its current form, does not satisfy Rule 141, just as its previous 

stipulation (Doc. 22) failed. 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. 26 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. (Doc. 26 at 4). 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.” This is the second time the 

parties have filed an insufficiently specific proposed protective order. Without a 

“particularized need for protection,” and an explanation as to why the need for protection to be 

addressed by court order, the Court cannot grant the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 26), 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.

//

//

//

//

Case 1:23-cv-01695-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 3
3

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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

approval of their stipulated protective order (Doc. 26) is DENIED without prejudice subject to 

renewal of the request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01695-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 3