Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California partially grants the parties’ stipulated motion for a protective order. The Court limits confidential information to specific categories qualifying for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), rejects broader subjective confidentiality designations, and clarifies that court orders cannot be amended without judicial approval.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties' proposed definition of confidential information was sufficiently limited to support entry of a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
- Whether the parties could amend the protective order by stipulation without obtaining further court approval.
- Whether a protective order could bind the court or override the court's established practices and rules.
Holdings
- The court granted the protective order only as to specific categories of confidential information, such as financial information, business strategy, customer information, future business plans, staffing levels, and organization charts, and rejected the broader provision based on a party's subjective discomfort or good-faith belief alone.
- The parties may not amend a court-entered protective order through stipulation without first obtaining the court's approval.
- A protective order may not bind the court or its personnel, and the court's established practices and rules govern if they conflict with the protective order.
Key quotations
“The Court grants the motion for a protective order to the extent that confidential information or items are limited to the specific examples given” (at 1)
“To be binding, any proposed alteration to any court order must first be approved by the Court.” (at 2)
“a protective order may not bind the Court or its personnel.” (at 2)
Factual background
The parties proposed a protective order covering information that was not publicly known and that either party subjectively, in good faith, was uncomfortable publishing. The proposal identified examples including financial information, business strategy, customer information, future business plans, staffing levels, and organization charts.
Procedural history
Plaintiff and defendant filed a stipulated motion for a protective order at ECF No. 18. The district court reviewed the proposed confidentiality provisions and granted the motion only to the extent specified in the order.