UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 11, 2012
FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Michael R. Wilner
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Michael R. Wilner
Veronica McKamie n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: REVIEW OF PROPOSED
The Court entered a protective order in this action pursuant to the agreement of the parties. (Docket # 42-43.) Shortly after the Court reviewed and entered the protective order, the parties submitted a second stipulation regarding a different protective order. (Docket # 44.) The second protective order appears to relate to documents produced by the FDIC to the litigants.
The parties have not adequately explained why this case requires two separate protective orders. Further, based on the Court's review of the governing regulation to which the parties cited (12 C.F.R. § 306(b)(8)), there does not appear to be a regulatory imperative for any specific language in the operative protective order. Rather, according to the rule, there need only be "a commitment [by the parties] to be bound by a protective order" for the agency's general counsel to produce relevant documents. See also 12 C.F.R. § 306(b)(10) ("Wherever practicable, disclosure of exempt records shall be made pursuant to a protective order and redacted to exclude all irrelevant or non-responsive exempt information.")
The Court sees no need for the issuance of a second order governing discovery. With the initial order in place as requested (Docket # 43), the parties are under an affirmative obligation not to make improper use of materials designated as confidential. If the parties agree with FDIC to designate the agency's materials in the same manner, they bear the same protection and face the same consequences for misuse under the existing order. For this reason, the Court declines to enter the second proposed order. The parties are free to make further submissions regarding this issue to explain their positions further if necessary.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.