Jonathan Schwartz et al v. Smith and Nephew Inc et al

Filing 20

DENIED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton re Stipulation for Protective Order 19 . Para 15: Wrong Court. Must follow L.R. 79-5. Para 26: Court will not retain jurisdiction after termination of action. Para 27: Delete OSC procedure. Parties may submit an amended Proposed Protection Order separate from an amended Stipulation. (rh)

1
2
3

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION (LOS ANGELES)

11
12
13
14

JONATHAN SCHWARTZ and
JENNIFER JEFFERS-SCHWARTZ,
individuals,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive,

20

22

24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Judge: Hon. Audrey B. Collins
Courtroom: 680

Defendants.

21

23

Case No.: CV13-03305-ABC (VBKx)
[Action Filed: January 24, 2013]

Plaintiffs Jonathan Schwartz and Jennifer Jeffers-Schwartz (“Plaintiffs”)
and defendant Smith & Nephew, Inc. (“Defendant”) having stipulated and good
cause appearing therefor,
///
///
///
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 26(c), the Stipulated Protective Order agreed to by Plaintiffs and

3

Defendant, through their counsel of record, is entered by the Court.

4

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5
6
7

Para 15: Wrong Court. Must follow L.R. 79-5.

8

Para 26: Court will not retain jurisdiction after termination of action.

9

Para 27: Delete OSC procedure.

10
11
12
13

Parties may submit an amended Proposed Protection Order separate from an
amended Stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15
16
17

Dated: February 13, 2014

______________________________
/s/
Honorable Victor B. Kenton
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER