Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00383/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cecilia Duarte
Plaintiff
Target Corporation
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

 A party may have the right to protect from public disclosure information which has 1

been produced to the other party only because of discovery, and which has not been filed with the

court. Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984). Id. at 33, 37, 104 S. Ct.

at 2207, 2209.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA DUARTE,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-07-0383 LKK GGH

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The parties submitted on May 23, 2007, a proposed stipulation and order

regarding confidentiality and sealing of documents in this litigation.

Discovery information disclosed in court filings generally is available to the

public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th

Cir.1999) (“[i]t is well-established that the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence of a

court order to the contrary, presumptively public”). 

1

Protective orders safeguard the parties and other persons in light of the otherwise

broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). The

Case 2:07-cv-00383-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/05/07 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

2

court has great discretion to issue protective orders if discovery causes annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States,

596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Good cause, however, is required to obtain a protective order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Foltz v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

2003); Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (“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”). 

 “Good cause” to bar the public from litigation documents must be more than

mere desire. The party seeking protection must show specific prejudice or harm, including, with

respect to individual documents, particular and specific need. Id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,

187 F.3d at 1102; W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial § 11:88. “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 (citing Glenmade Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995) (factors)). 

Some proposed protective orders enable the parties to designate so much material

as “confidential” that, in essence, entire case filings are sealed. The protective order submitted

by the parties has the same potential problem. This court will not approve a protective order

giving blanket authority to the parties to designate what shall be filed under seal. 

Accordingly, the proposed protective order is disapproved, and will not be signed. 

Any further attempt to have the court enter a protective order shall contain provisions requiring a 

submission by the party attempting to have a particular document/filing submitted under seal

which demonstrates good cause for the document/filing sought to be sealed in whole or in part.

DATED: 6/5/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Duarte0383.po.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00383-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 2