Horn v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LAMAR HORN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01017-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., (ECF No. 17) 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF 17 No. 17). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes 18 that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean “information 19 (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 21 Statement.” (Id. at 4) (alterations to capitalization and punctuation). Such a definition improperly 22 allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe that it 23 qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and without ever disclosing 24 the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). 25 However, the parties also reference the Good Cause Statement in the proposed order as 26 containing information they deem confidential, which statement discusses, among other things, 27 policies regarding security of merchandise, employee records, and its business practices. (ECF 28 1 | No. 17, pp. 2-4). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential 2 | information to that information contained in the section of the protective order titled, “Good 3 | Cause Statement.” (/d.). 4 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 5 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 6 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 7 established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 8 discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 9 ECF No. 17, p. 8; ECF No. 16, pp. 3-4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the 0 Court’s website). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 17) 12 is approved, in part, as revised above. 13 14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | pated: _ October 6, 2023 [sJe— Fahey □ 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28