Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley

E.D. California

Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 21, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00060·Unknown

Opinion

CRYSTAL MITCHELL, individually and Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG on behalf od all others similarly situated, ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. (ECF No. 32). THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF No. 32). 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 (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under California Law.” (ECF No. 32, p. 2). As the Court previously advised the parties, “such a catchall description is not sufficient ‘in general terms [] to reveal the nature of the information’ under LR 141.1(c)(1).” (ECF No. 31, p. 2). However, the parties also reference specific categories of information, e.g., trade secrets, confidential information and/or proprietary information related to the Bonus Program Policies and Incentive Programs created by Defendant and the wage information of Defendant’s non-party employees in a section titled “Description of Information and Need.” (ECF No. 32, p. 4). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information to those categories specifically identified in this section. Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 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 Court’s established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See ECF No. 21, p. 4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 32) is approved, in part, as revised above. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 21, 2023 □□□ hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRYSTAL MITCHELL, individually and Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG on behalf od all others similarly situated, ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, PROPOSED Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. (ECF No. 32). THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order. (ECF No. 32). 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 (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under California Law.” (ECF No. 32, p. 2). As the Court previously advised the parties, “such a catchall description is not sufficient ‘in general terms [] to reveal the nature of the information’ under LR 141.1(c)(1).” (ECF No. 31, p. 2). However, the parties also reference specific categories of information, e.g., trade secrets, confidential information and/or proprietary information related to the Bonus Program Policies and Incentive Programs created by Defendant and the wage information of Defendant’s non-party employees in a section titled “Description of Information and Need.” (ECF No. 32, p. 4). Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information to those categories specifically identified in this section. Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 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 Court’s established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See ECF No. 21, p. 4 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 32) is approved, in part, as revised above. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 21, 2023 □□□ hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley (Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.