Sanchez, Jr v. Walmart Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARMANDO SANCHEZ, JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00835-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN PART 13 WALMART, INC., (ECF No. 16) 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order.1 (ECF 17 No. 16). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes 18 that the parties define the term “confidential information” to mean “information contained or disclosed in any materials, including documents, portions of documents, answers to 19 interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions, trial testimony, deposition testimony, and 20 transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, including data, summaries, and compilations 21 derived therefrom that is deemed to be confidential information by any party to which it belongs.” 22 (Id. at 2) (emphasis added). Such a definition improperly allows the parties to deem information 23 confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection without ever 24 disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1). 25 However, the parties also state that the case “may contain trade secret or other confidential 26 research, technical, cost, price, marketing or other commercial information.” (ECF No. 16, p. 1). 27 1 The Court did not locate a Word version of the proposed protective order in its email box. Should the 28 parties submit any future proposed orders, they are directed to comply with Local Rule 137(b). 1 | Thereafter, the parties indicate some categories of materials where such information may appear, 2 | such as “price lists.” (id. at 2). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of 3 | confidential information to that information which contains “trade secret or other confidential 4 | research, technical, cost, price, marketing or other commercial information” and that may appear 5 | in the following materials: 6 documents; correspondence; memoranda; bulletins; blueprints; specifications; customer lists or other material that identify customers or potential customers; 7 price lists or schedules or other matter identifying pricing; minutes; telegrams; letters; statements; cancelled checks; contracts; invoices; drafts; books of account; 8 worksheets; notes of conversations; desk diaries; appointment books; expense accounts; recordings; photographs; motion pictures; compilations from which 9 information can be obtained and translated into reasonably usable form through 10 detection devices; sketches; drawings; notes (including laboratory notebooks and records); reports; instructions; disclosures; other writings; models and prototypes 11 and other physical objects. 2 (Id.). B Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 4 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 5 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s established practices or Rules, e.g., such as allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 16 discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 17 ECF No. 16, p. 6; ECF No. 12, pp. 3-4). 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 16) 19 |. . . is approved, in part, as revised above. 20 21 | SO ORDERED. 22 . . Dated: _ May 16, 2023 [see hey — 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28