A.A.B. v. City of Porterville

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California partially approves the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. The Court limits confidential information to specified categories, including medical records, personal information, records identifying the minor plaintiff, law-enforcement personnel records, third-party reports, and internal-affairs investigations, and clarifies that court practices and rules govern where they conflict with the order.

Holdings

1. The parties may not define confidential information solely by reference to their own determination that information qualifies for protection under Rule 26(c); the protective order must describe in general terms the types of information eligible for protection as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1).
2. A protective order may not bind the court or court personnel, and the court's established practices and rules govern to the extent of any conflict with the protective order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed stipulated protective order adequately described the types of information eligible for protection under Local Rule 141(c)(1).
2. Whether the protective order could bind the court or its personnel or override the court's established practices and rules.

Disposition

approved