1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 AZUCENA ORTIZ, on behalf of Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG themselves, and those similarly situated 10 and the State of California, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN PART 12 v. (ECF No. 109) 13 LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation for a protective order. (ECF No. 17 109). Upon review, the Court will approve the parties’ stipulation for a protective order, in part. 18 The parties define confidential information subject to protection to include “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).” (ECF No. 109, p. 2). But such a 20 definition improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they 21 themselves believe that it qualifies for protection without ever disclosing the types of information 22 at issue contrary to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires as follows: “A description of the types 23 of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general 24 terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary 25 of a troubled child).” 26 However, the Court notes that the parties elsewhere state that this case is “likely to 27 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information,” specifically identified as 28 1 | “disclosures [that] may include names and addresses of employees.” (ECF No. 109, p. 2). The 2 | Court approves the stipulation to the extent that confidential information is limited to this more 3 || specific description. 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 following other procedures than provided under the 8 Court’s informal discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules

9 will govern. (ECF No. 109, p. 7; see ECF No. 25, pp. 3-4; Standard Procedures, available on the Court’s website at https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/50351/). 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for a protective order (ECF No. 109) is granted, in part, as specified above. 12 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 22, 2025 [sl ey 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28