Summary
This document is an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California approving and incorporating the parties’ stipulated protective order, subject to specified conditions. It addresses sealing requests, confidentiality designations, discovery disputes, modifications, and the court’s jurisdiction over enforcement after termination of the action.
Holdings
- The stipulated protective order is approved and incorporated into the court’s order except to the extent it is inconsistent with the court’s additional provisions.
- Requests to seal documents must be made by motion before the judge who will decide the matter related to the sealing request, and a confidentiality designation under the protective order does not itself authorize filing under seal.
- A request to seal material ordinarily must satisfy the compelling-reasons standard, but a good-cause showing may suffice when the material is only tangentially related to the merits of the case.
- Unresolved disputes concerning the protective order, including disputes regarding inadvertently produced materials under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, must follow the procedures in Eastern District of California Local Rule 251; absent good cause, the court will not hear such discovery disputes ex parte or on shortened time.
- The parties may not modify the protective order without court approval, and the court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms after the action is terminated.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should approve and incorporate the parties’ stipulated protective order.
- What procedures and standards govern requests to seal documents covered by the protective order.
- What procedures govern disputes concerning the protective order and inadvertently produced materials.
- Whether the parties may modify the protective order without court approval and whether the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce it after termination of the action.
Disposition
approved
Cases Cited (2)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016)(followed)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…