UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2010
TINA PEREZ; CONNIE GARCIA; ODISY JANAS, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROSEANNE CORTEZ; AIDEN GAIGE RAMIREZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROBERTA COOKE, PLAINTIFFS,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
On September 3, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding confidential discovery materials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R. 141.1(c), any proposed 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
(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.
Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. If the parties would like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a stipulation and proposed order that comply with L.R. 141.1(c).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The parties file a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that comply with L.R. 141.1(c) and email a conforming copy of the stipulation and proposed order to firstname.lastname@example.org; and
2. If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for a protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.