Andrea Van Scoy, etal v. New Albertson's, Inc., etal

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/07/10 ORDERING that the parties' 23 Stipulated Protective Order is NOT approved. (Benson, A.)

Andrea Van Scoy, etal v. New Albertson's, Inc., etal

Doc. 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the court is the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order," which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination of information the parties seek to designate as "Protected Information" or as "Confidential." (Dkt. No. 23.) For the reasons that follow, the undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order as drafted. This court's Local Rule 141.1 provides, in part, that "[e]very proposed protective order shall" contain certain provisions, including "[a] showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties." Local Rule 144.1(d)(3). The parties' proposed stipulated protective order does not contain this required showing. Accordingly, the undersigned will not approve the stipulation as proposed. However, the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order that meets all of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREA VAN SCOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER No. 2:08-cv-02237 MCE KJN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order" is not approved. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 7, 2010

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2