1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAMONA AMEZCUA DIAZ, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01625-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 STEVE BRYANT, (ECF No. 23) 14 Defendant.

15 16 17 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF 18 No. 23). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” as follows: “information 19 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 20 protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the 21 Good Cause Statement.” (ECF No. 23, p. 6).1 22 Such definition improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as 23 they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 26(c) and without ever disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 25 141.1(c)(1) (requiring “[a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under 26 27 1 For readability, the Court has made minor edits to punctuation and capitalization of some of the parties’ 28 quotations without indicating each change. 1 | the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of 2 | the information (e. g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child)”). 3 However, the parties also reference confidential information in their “good cause 4 || statement,” which section discusses specific information, “including peace officer personnel 5 || records.” (ECF No. 23, p. 2). Such information is sufficiently detailed to comply with Local Rule 6 | 141.1(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information to 7 || those categories specifically identified in this section. 8 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 9 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS),

, at *2 10 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s

established practices or Rules, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 23) is approved, in part, as revised above.

14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ April 23, 2024 □□□ hey 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28