IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 4, 2012
JOSE M. PEREZ, PLAINTIFF,
D.K. SISTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The parties filed a stipulated protective order on December 28, 2011 to govern maintenance and disclosure of the following exhibits: 1) exhibit V - four color photographs taken of Facility 2 Yard; 2) exhibit W - diagram of Facility 2 Yard; and 3) exhibit BB - videotaped interview of plaintiff conducted on February 3, 2006. (ECF 108.) The court hereby ADOPTS the stipulation in part, to the extent it governs the parties' exchange of information between and among themselves, but DECLINES TO ADOPT paragraph 7 at page 3 lines 4-5.
With regard to paragraph 7, which addresses the potential filing with the court of exhibits covered by the stipulation, the parties' language does not appear to contemplate the possibility that the court may not approve filing the exhibits under seal, even if a party files a proper motion requesting sealing under Local Rule 141.1(c). If a party does move to file the exhibits under seal, the court will at that time evaluate the motion in light of the Local Rule and applicable case law. See, e.g., Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows 'good cause' why a protective order is necessary.").
Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS:
1. The parties' stipulated protective order is adopted in part; and
2. Paragraph 7 located at page 3 lines 4-5 of the stipulated protective order is not adopted, without prejudice to a party's filing a proper motion seeking to seal any of the exhibits in connection with a court filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.