United States District Court, C.D. California
FIDELINA RANGEL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana Corporation, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(DKT. NO. 18)
SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Court has received and considered the parties' Stipulated
Protective Order (the “Proposed Order”). (Dkt.
No. 18). The Court cannot adopt the Proposed Order as drafted
by the parties. The parties may submit a revised proposed
stipulated protective order, but must correct the following
the Proposed Order fails to include an adequate statement of
good cause. (Proposed Order at 1, ¶ 1-2). The Court may
only enter a protective order upon a showing of good cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (parties must make a
“particularized showing” under Rule 26(c) for the
court to enter protective order); Phillips v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-12 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule
26(c) requires a showing of good cause for a protective
order); Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187
F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective
orders require good cause showing).
revised proposed stipulated protective order submitted to the
Court, the parties must include a statement demonstrating
good cause for entry of a protective order pertaining to the
documents or information described in the order. The
paragraph containing the statement of good cause should be
preceded by a heading stating: “GOOD CAUSE
STATEMENT.” 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).
the Proposed Order is overbroad. (Proposed Order at 4, ¶
h). 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 “tax returns, ” etc.). Here, the
parties define confidential information as “all
originals and copies of any document and/or information that
any party has designated as such by stamping or otherwise
marking each page ‘CONFIDENTIAL.'”
(Id.). This definition does not clearly place the
parties or the Court on notice of the specific documents
covered by the Proposed Order. As such, the definition is
overbroad. The documents subject to a protective order must
be particularly defined and described. The parties may submit
a revised proposed stipulated protective order, but must
correct this deficiency.
alternative, if the parties seek a “blanket”
protective order, as opposed to an order protecting
individually-identified documents, the stipulation must state
the justification for this type of protective order. See
Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
712 F.3d 1349, 1352 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining a
“blanket” protective order as an order that is
obtained without “making a particularized showing of
good cause with respect to any individual document”)
(citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138); Perry v.
Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (blanket
protective orders often cover materials that would not
qualify for protection if subjected to individualized
a protective order may not bind the Court or its personnel.
(Proposed Order at 4, ¶ 5). Any revised proposed
stipulated protective order may not include language that
binds the Court or obligates Court personnel to act in a
certain manner in relation to confidential documents.
the Court will not agree to the procedures the parties
propose in the event of a dispute regarding the designation
of confidential information. (Proposed Order at 5, ¶
1-2). In the event of a dispute regarding the designation of
confidential information, the procedure for obtaining a
decision from the Court is that set forth in Local Rule 37.
If the parties want to file the Joint Stipulation required by
Local Rule 37 under seal, the parties may file a stipulation
to that effect or the moving party may file an ex parte
application making the appropriate request. The parties must
set forth good cause in the stipulation or ex parte
application as to why the Joint Stipulation or portions
thereof should be filed under seal.
parties must follow procedures from Local Rule 79 for
submitting confidential information to the court. (Proposed
Order at 9-10, ¶ n). If confidential material is
included in any papers to be filed in Court, such papers
shall be accompanied by an application pursuant to Local Rule
79, to file the papers - or the confidential portion thereof
- under seal. The application shall be directed to the judge
to whom the papers are directed. Pending the ruling on the
application, the papers or portions thereof subject to the
sealing applications shall be lodged under seal.
Court advises the parties that all future discovery documents
shall include the following in the caption: “[Discovery
Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H.
Segal].” Finally, the Court notes that its website (see
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov) contains additional
guidance regarding protective orders and a sample protective
order. This information is available in Judge Segal's
section of the link marked “Judges' Procedures
parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed]
Protective Order ...