Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01645/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01645-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC
Defendant
Nataly Lopez Vargas
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATALY LOPEZ VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01645-ADA-HBK

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

(Doc. No. 20)

On August 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated proposed protective order. (Doc. No. 

20). The Court declines to approve the proposed protective order because it does not comply with 

this Court’s Local Rules. More specifically, the proposed protective order does not define exactly 

what materials are protected. Notably, the term “confidential” is defined as follows:

‘Confidential’ means any information which is in the possession of 

a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such 

information is entitled to confidential treatment under appliable 

law. 

(Doc. No. 20 at 2, ¶1.c). Similarly, “Confidential Materials” is defined as “any Documents, 

Testimony or Information as defined below designated as ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the 

provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order.” (Id., ¶1.d). This language is too broad and 

not compliant with this Court’s Local Rules. Specifically, Eastern District of California Local 

Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective order contain the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-01645-DJC-JDP Document 21 Filed 08/22/23 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

(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

(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) (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2022). 

The proposed stipulated protective order does not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

because it includes a catchall description of confidential information, and this description is not 

sufficient “in general terms [] to reveal the nature of the information” under Local Rule 

141.1(c)(1). Further, the parties also have not articulated a showing of particularized need for 

protection as to each category nor explained why a court order is necessary, as opposed to a 

private agreement between the parties. Id.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 20) 

is DENIED, without prejudice, to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local 

Rule 141.1(c).

Dated: August 21, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:22-cv-01645-DJC-JDP Document 21 Filed 08/22/23 Page 2 of 2