ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
On June 14, 2018, each party filed a discovery related motion. (ECF Nos. 16 & 17.) Those motions are noticed for hearing before the undersigned on July 6, 2018. The matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1).
Each motion concerns the failure of the parties to agree to a stipulated protective order and seeks an order from the undersigned entering a protective order in this action.1 Instead of a single notice of motion and joint statement, the parties filed two separate motions, two separate joint statements, a request for judicial notice, and five separate declarations. (ECF Nos. 16-25.) It is entirely unclear to the undersigned why hundreds of pages of documents are needed to brief the parties' dispute.
Moreover, it is unusual for parties to seek an order from the court setting forth the provisions of a global protective order, particularly in the absence of a dispute over a specific class or item of discovery. In civil actions, parties routinely enter into stipulated protective orders. Although the decision of whether to enter the stipulation is for the court, it is the parties that typically draft the stipulated protective order as they are in a better position to know their case and what information should be subject to such a protective order.
Accordingly, to understand the nature of the parties' dispute, the undersigned will continue the hearing of the parties' motions and order that the parties file a single supplemental joint statement. The supplemental joint statement shall address all arguments and outstanding issues raised by the parties' discovery motions. The supplemental joint statement shall also be governed by the undersigned's 25-page limit. See http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate-judge-deborah-barnes-db. Any citations to documents previously filed shall include pinpoint citations.2 Each party shall also file, as an exhibit to the supplemental joint statement, their proposed protective order, and provide a Word version of their proposed protective order to dborders@caed.uscourts.gov.
Moreover, the parties shall meet and confer at least one additional time prior to the continued hearing date. In meeting and conferring over their dispute, the parties shall keep in mind the following. Local Rule 141.1(c), provides that a proposed protective order must include:
(1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and
(3) A showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.
All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) ("It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public."). Therefore, documents that are the subject of a protective order may be filed under seal only if a sealing order is first obtained. See Local Rule 141.1. A party seeking to obtain a sealing order shall comply with the provisions of Local Rule 141, which sets forth a specific procedure for seeking a sealing order.
Local Rule 141(b) requires, in relevant part, that a "`Request to Seal Documents' shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information." In evaluating requests to seal, the court starts "`with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.'" Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). "The presumption of access is `based on the need for federal courts, although independent — indeed, particularly because they are independent — to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that "compelling reasons" support secrecy. Id. (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). However, where the material is, at most, "tangentially related to the merits of a case," the request to seal may be granted on a showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097-1101.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The July 6, 2018 hearing of plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 16) and defendant's motion (ECF No. 17) is continued to Friday, August 10, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;
2. On or before August 3, 2018, the parties file a, single, supplemental joint statement addressing the parties' dispute and complying with the provisions set forth above;3 and
3. Prior to drafting the August 3, 2018 supplemental joint statement, the parties shall again meet and confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing.
