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.

Lonnie R. Smith, Individually, and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Ceva Logistics U.S.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 13, 2011

LONNIE R. SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Suzanne H. Segal United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court has received and considered the parties' "Stipulation for Protective Order Regarding Production of Confidential Information" (the "Protective Order"). The Court is unable to adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the following reasons:

First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be overbroad. Therefore, the documents, information, items or materials that are subject to the protective order shall be described in a meaningful and specific fashion (for example, "personnel records," "medical records," or "financial information," etc.). The current language used to describe the protected documents is overbroad. (Protective Order at 3, ¶ f). Specifically, it is not sufficient to describe the protected documents as "confidential or sensitive proprietary, business, commercial or personal information." (Id.). The parties may submit a revised stipulated protective order, but must correct this deficiency. Additionally, the parties shall articulate, for each document or category of documents they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that will result if no protective order is entered. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).

Second, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties propose for resolving disputes. (Protective Order at 10, ¶ 7).*fn1 Before seeking court intervention in any discovery matter, the parties must strictly comply with the Central District's Local Rule 37. Both parties must timely file a written joint stipulation containing all issues in dispute. C.D. Cal. R. 37-2, 37-2.1. The form and preparation of this stipulation are expressly laid out in Local Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2. C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.1, 37-2.2. The Court will not consider the dispute unless the stipulation or a declaration from the moving party describing how the opposing party failed to cooperate in formulating the stipulation is timely filed. See C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.