IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2013
FAUZIA MOQADAM, PLAINTIFF,
EUROFINS AIR TOXICS, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is the parties' Stipulation for Protective Order and Proposed Protective Order which seeks approval of an order governing the treatment of discovery materials that the parties intend to designate as "Confidential Information." (Dkt. No. 10). At the present time, the undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order, but will consider a revised proposed stipulated protective order that addresses the court's concerns identified below.
In particular, it is unclear from the proposed stipulated protective order whether the parties intend that the marking of material as "Confidential Information" pursuant to the protective order would automatically result in the sealing of such materials filed with the court. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 10 at 3-4, ¶ 6.) The sealing of documents is never automatic, and the parties are required to file a request to seal in accordance with the Eastern District Local Rules, including Local Rule 141, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned recommends that the parties consider including a provision to that effect in any revised proposed stipulated protective order.
Additionally, the parties are advised that the undersigned is strongly disinclined, absent some compelling reason, to approve any provision that creates retained jurisdiction over a stipulated protective order and related disputes after termination of the action. Local Rule 141.1(f) provides: "Once the Clerk has closed an action, unless otherwise ordered, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action." E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(f).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' proposed stipulated protective order (dkt. no. 10) is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the refiling of a revised proposed stipulated protective order that addresses the court's concerns outlined above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.