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)
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?