Perkins v. Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company

Filing 14

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANDREW PERKINS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
NESTLÉ DREYER’S ICE CREAM
COMPANY,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01877-LJO-SKO
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE REQUEST TO ENTER
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. 13)

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16
17

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.)
23

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.
27 Dated:
28

May 2, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

.