Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02064/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02064-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc.
Defendant
Robert Osterkamp
Plaintiff
Timec Inc.
Defendant
Transfield Services Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 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

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT OSTERKAMP, an individual,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM 

SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

d/b/a TRANSFIELD SERVICES INC. 

d/b/a TIMEC INC.; and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

NO. 2:16-cv-02064-SB

ORDER DENYING 

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before the Court is parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 16. The 

parties seek a protective order to protect confidential, proprietary, and private 

information. This motion was heard without oral argument.

The product of pretrial discovery is presumptively public, though Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits a district court to override this 

presumption upon a showing of “good cause.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 

U.S. District Court—Northern Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 

1999). Rule 26(c) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to 

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense.” Prior to the grant of a protective order, the moving party must 

certify it has “conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an 

Case 2:16-cv-02064-SB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 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

27

effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis 

added).

Where the parties agree, as here, that certain information should remain 

confidential, it may be prudent to enter into an agreement setting forth in writing 

what information shall remain private. It is unnecessary, however, for such an 

agreement to have this Court’s imprimatur. A court issued protective order is less 

necessary since Rule 5(d) was amended to only require filing discovery material 

actually used in support of an action. Because not all discovery material need be 

filed, most discovery material is not readily accessible to the public. Therefore, the 

primary concern regarding confidential materials is how the parties themselves 

handle such material. This Court will not hesitate to issue a protective order when 

it is necessary; however, the moving party or parties must demonstrate good cause 

exists and must bear the “burden of showing specific prejudice or harm” that will 

result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). In other words, the moving party must demonstrate why 

the parties cannot resolve the issue without court action—a standard that will 

generally not be met when the parties agree to the terms of a proposed protective 

order.

The motion at hand fails to demonstrate specific harm or prejudice that will 

result if no protective order is granted. Additionally, the parties appear to be in 

agreement on what material is appropriate for discovery and how it should be 

handled. Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulated motion for protective order.

The Court encourages the parties to continue cooperating with respect to the 

handling of potentially sensitive discovery material. The parties may, upon proper 

showing tied to specific discovery material, move the Court to seal certain 

discovery filings.

//

//

Case 2:16-cv-02064-SB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER + 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

27

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 

file this Order and provide copies to counsel.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2017.

 _______________________________

 Stanley A. Bastian

 United States District Judge

 

Case 2:16-cv-02064-SB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3