ORDER

DOMINIC W. LANZA, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulation Re Proposed Protective Order and Rule 502 Order. (Doc. 23.) The introductory paragraph quotes a protective order filed in a district court in California, Ventana Sales Design & Mfg. v. Newell Window Furnishings, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171356, *4-5 (C.D. Cal. 2012), that seems to be at odds—albeit perhaps only semantically—with cases within the Ninth Circuit that suggest that a "blanket" protective order shall not issue. E.g., AGA Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 2007 WL 4225450, *1 (D. Ariz. 2007). The Court's Preliminary Order states that "[a]s a general practice, this Court does not approve or adopt blanket protective orders or confidentiality agreements, even when stipulated to by the parties." (Doc. 5 at 3.) Furthermore, the Court is wary of potential ambiguity in the parties' proposed protective order. (Doc. 23 at 2-3.)

Rather than excise a portion of the proposed order to which the parties stipulated, the Court will deny without prejudice the parties' stipulation. The parties may file a new stipulation that does not suggest that it is a "blanket" protective order and does not state that the order "shall apply" to essentially everything under the sun. Although the parties are not bound to use the Court's sample protective order, the parties may find it helpful to use it (whether as a guide or verbatim). The sample protective order is located online at http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge-orders/DWL%20Protective%20Ord er.pdf.