Opinion
Case No. 1:20-cv-00644-NONE-SKO
02-22-2021
KARLA BADAY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KINGS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. 42)
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 18, 2021, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulated Protective Order. (Doc. 42.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' request to approve the stipulated protective order.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)
The proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
(1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);Local Rule 141.1(c).
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and
(3) A showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.
In setting forth the information eligible for protection, the proposed protective order provides: "These confidential documents include, but are not limited to: [¶] 1. Plaintiff's medical records, including any and all mental health care records, evaluations, and notes; [¶] 2. Probation reports; [¶] 3. Documents pertaining to any child sexual abuse investigations, including the investigation of abuse allegations concerning [F.V.], [G.B.], and [K.B.][;] [and] [¶] 4. Medical Reports pertaining to alleged sexual abuse victims." (Doc. 42 at 2, emphasis added.) The protective order, with its inclusion of the phrase "but are not limited to," fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires "[a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information." Without any additional qualification to the phrase "but are not limited to" or the removal thereof, the proposed protective order does not sufficiently identify the types of information eligible for protection. B. The Parties' Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiency set forth in this order.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' request for approval of the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 42) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22 , 2021
/s/ Sheila K . Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE