1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LOUIS CRUZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00293-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE 13 CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al., ORDER 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 8) 15 16 17 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation for the Court to approve their 18 proposed protective order. (ECF No. 8). Upon review, the Court will approve the stipulation, in 19 part. 20 The Court finds the proposed protective order acceptable in most respects. However, the 21 Court notes that the parties define the term ‘“confidential’ information or items” to mean 22 “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 23 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).” (ECF No. 8, p. 2) 24 (capitalization omitted). 25 Such an expansive definition improperly allows the parties to deem information 26 confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection and without ever 27 disclosing the types of information at issue under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires “[a] 28 description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description 1 | provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, 2 | formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” However, the parties elsewhere indicate that the 3 | confidential information or items include the following types of information: 4 e Medical records of Plaintiff; e Personal information of parties in this litigation or third parties, including but not 5 limited to social security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, and financial records; 6 e Personnel records of law enforcement officers; 7 e Reports pertaining to third parties not involved in this litigation; and e Internal affairs/professional standards investigations. 8 (ECF No. 8, p. 2). The Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information or items ? to such records. 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 JFW (SS),

, 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, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for a protective order (ECF 15 | No. 8) is approved, in part, as explained above. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: __ May 9, 2025 [Je hey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28