Tadevosyan v. Safeco Insurance Company of America ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NVER TADEVOSYAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01631-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 14 (ECF No. 23) Defendant. 15 16 On September 11, 2024, the parties filed a stipulated protective order for the Court’s 17 approval. (ECF No. 23). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the 18 Court notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean 19 “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 20 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 21 Cause Statement.” (Id. at 3) (minor revisions to capitalization). 22 Such an expansive definition improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection and without ever disclosing the 23 types of information at issue under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires “[a] description of the 24 types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general 25 terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of 26 a troubled child).” However, the parties also reference their good cause statement in defining 27 confidential information or items, which provides as follows: 1 This action may involve trade secrets and other confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 2 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 3 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 4 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 5 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 6 court rules, case decisions, or common law. (ECF No. 23, p. 2). 7 The Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information or items to that more 8 specifically described above, e.g., trade secrets, confidential business or financial information, and ? confidential research. 10 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 11 || personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JEW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 12 || (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 13 || established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 14 || discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 15 || ECF No. 23, p. 6; ECF No. 11, pp. 3-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conference 16 || and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website) 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 23) is 1g || approved, in part, as revised above. 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 12, 2024 [Je heey 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27