1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 POMPEIAN, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00766-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, JOINT

STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE

13 THE MILL AT KINGS RIVER, LLC, et ORDER al., 14 (ECF No. 40) Defendants. 15

16 17 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint stipulation for the Court to approve 18 their proposed protective order. (ECF No. 40). Upon review, the Court will grant the stipulation 19 in part. 20 The Court finds the proposed protective order acceptable in most respects. However, the 21 Court notes that the parties broadly state: 22 confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 23 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 24 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, and information 25 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 26 (ECF No. 40 at 2-3). 27 Such an expansive definition improperly allows the parties to deem information 28 1 | confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection and without ever 2 | disclosing the types of information at issue under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires “[a] 3 || description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description 4 || provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, 5 | formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” Therefore, the Court will limit the parties’ definition 6 of confidential information to the following types of documents: confidential business or 7 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 8 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 9 rights of third parties). Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 0 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the 2 Court’s established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s 13 informal discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See ECF No. 26 at 3-4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and 15 discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website)). 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for a protective order (ECF 17 | No. AO) is granted, in part, as revised above. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Dated: _ March 11, 2025 □□□ Fahey —

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28