Faubel v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California partially granted Defendant’s motion for entry of a protective order. The court limited the definition of confidential information to specified categories, including trade secrets, confidential personal, financial, business, and competitive information, and clarified that the protective order could not override the court’s rules or established procedures.

Holdings

1. A protective order may not define confidential information solely by reference to information that the parties believe qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c); the order must describe in general terms the types of information eligible for protection. The court therefore limited the definition to the categories identified in the motion.
2. A protective order does not bind the court or court personnel, and the court's established practices and rules govern if the protective order conflicts with them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed protective order adequately described the types of information eligible for confidential treatment under Local Rule 141(c)(1).
2. Whether a protective order may bind the court or permit the parties to bypass the court's established practices and rules.

Disposition

other