Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Margaret A. Green v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 21, 2011

MARGARET A. GREEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is the parties' "Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order" ("Stipulated Protective Order"), which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination of certain, identified documents. (Dkt. No. 12.) The undersigned does not approve the proposed Stipulated Protective Order as drafted because it does not conform to the requirements of Eastern District Local Rule 141.1.

This court's Local Rule 141.1(c) provides:

(c) Requirements of a Proposed Protective Order. All stipulations and motions seeking the entry of a protective order shall be accompanied by a proposed form of order. Every proposed protective order shall 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.

E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)-(3). Although the Stipulated Protective Order makes the showing required by subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Local Rule 141.1, it does not contain any provision addressing "why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties." E. Dist. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). Because the parties have not made the showing required by Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), the undersigned does not approve the Stipulated Protective Order as presently drafted. However, the parties may either enter into a private agreement or file a proposed stipulated protective order that meets all of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' "Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order" is not approved, but without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed stipulated protective order if the parties are unable to reach a private agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110621

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.