Perkins v. Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Request to Enter Stipulated Protective Order. The parties may file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that satisfies the requirements of the Local Rules of this Court. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/2/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NESTLÉ DREYER’S ICE CREAM
Case No. 1:16-cv-01877-LJO-SKO
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE REQUEST TO ENTER
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ request that the Court enter a proposed Stipulated
18 Protective Order (the “Request”). (Doc. 13.) Local Rule 141.1 provides, in pertinent part, that
19 any proposed protective order must include “[a] showing as to why the need for protection should
20 be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”
21 E.D. Cal. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). The parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not
22 provide such a showing. (See Doc. 13.)
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ Request, (id.), WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The
24 parties may file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that satisfies the requirements of the
25 Local Rules of this Court.
26 IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 2, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?