1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT Case No. 1:23-cv-01422-JLT-EPG OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 ELAINE’S PET RESORTS, LP, et al., (ECF No. 9). 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF 19 No. O). Upon review of the parties’ stipulated protective order, the Court finds it acceptable in 20 most respects. The Court notes that the parties do not make a showing as to the “particularized 21 need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order” or 22 “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private 23 agreement between or among the parties.” (See Local Rule 141.1(c)(2)-(3)). However, the 24 protective order references specific categories of information, i.e., financial records, medical 25 records and certain business records, that are sufficiently detailed to comply with Local Rule 26 141.1(c)(1). (ECF No. 9, p. 2) (“The following categories of information produced by a Party in 27 discovery may be designated and treated as Confidential in this litigation: a. Financial records, 28 1 | including tax forms, financial records, financial statements, account numbers, and credit card 2 | information; b. Medical, health care, and mental health records and information for any Charging 3 | Parties, Claimants, and employees with disabilities; and c. Trade secrets and customer lists.”). 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),

, 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. 41, p. 6; ECF No. 32, 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. 9) is 2 approved. 13 14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | pated: __-Mareh 21, 2024 [se hey □ 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28