Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This matter came before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on the parties' stipulation for a protective order (ECF No. 38) in a civil action filed by plaintiff Nilda Palacios against defendants Tony Ormonde and others. The parties submitted a proposed protective order defining confidential information broadly as any information or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), effectively allowing the parties to designate material as confidential based on their own assessment of whether it meets the Rule 26(c) standard.
The court reviewed the stipulation for compliance with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires that a protective order include a description of the types of information eligible for protection in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information, such as customer lists, formulas, or personal diaries. The court identified that while the general definition in the stipulation was deficient under the local rule, the 'Purposes and Limitations' section of the proposed order specifically enumerated four categories of confidential information at issue in this case: investigation files, confidential prisoner records, medical records, and the personal identifying information of the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The court approved the stipulation for a protective order in part. It held that the broad definition of confidential information—allowing designation based solely on the parties' belief that material qualifies for Rule 26(c) protection—was improper because it failed to satisfy Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)'s requirement for a specific description of the types of information eligible for protection. The court limited the scope of confidential information to the four specific categories identified in the 'Purposes and Limitations' section: investigation files, confidential prisoner records, medical records, and the personal identifying information of the defendants.
Additionally, the court ruled that a protective order may not bind the court or its personnel, citing Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., 2017 WL 2825922 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). The court ordered that to the extent the stipulated protective order conflicts with the court's established practices or rules—such as procedures for informal discovery dispute resolution—the court's established practices and rules will govern. The court referenced its Standard Procedures available on the court's website and the initial case management order (ECF No. 4 at 4-5).
Key Takeaways
- A protective order's definition of confidential information must specifically describe the types of information eligible for protection per Local Rule 141.1(c)(1); a circular reference to Rule 26(c) without further specification is insufficient.
- Courts will approve stipulated protective orders only to the extent they comply with local rules and the court's own procedures.
- A protective order cannot bind the court or its personnel or override the court's established discovery dispute resolution processes.
- Parties should ensure proposed protective orders align with the specific judge's standing orders and local rules regarding discovery disputes.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the requirement that protective orders in the Eastern District of California must contain specific, descriptive categories of protected information rather than boilerplate references to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). It affirms the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and discovery processes, making clear that stipulated agreements between parties cannot supersede the court's standing orders or local rules, particularly regarding informal discovery dispute resolution. The decision serves as a practical reminder for practitioners to tailor protective orders to the specific facts of the case and the specific requirements of the assigned judge.