Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 104

ORDER modifying April 5, 2017 Protective Order re 102 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/14/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 OUSSAMA SAHIBI, Case No. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER MODIFYING APRIL 5, 2017 PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 102) 13 v. 14 15 BORJAS GONZALES, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following shall be substituted in place of page 11, lines 14 through 23, of the April 5, 2017 Protective Order (ECF No. 102): “1. The confidential documents may be submitted to the possession of the following persons: a. Counsel for the parties in this action, including Plaintiff should Plaintiff obtain counsel; b. Paralegal, stenographic, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employ by counsel for a party; c. Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are incidental to the preparation for trial or trial of this action; 28 1 Order Modifying April 5, 2017 Protective Order (1:15-cv-01581-LJO MJS (PC)) 1 d. Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiff or a party’s counsel 2 3 4 5 6 7 for purposes of this action; and” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following shall be substituted in place of page 12, lines 11 through 13 of the April 5, 2017 Protective Order (ECF No. 102): “4. No confidential material obtained by Plaintiff, any other party or a party’s counsel shall be disclosed except as is necessary to the litigation of this case, including if applicable its appeal, and for no other purpose.” 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: April 14, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Order Modifying April 5, 2017 Protective Order (1:15-cv-01581-LJO MJS (PC))

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?