Kozacenko v. State of California

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/13: Defendants' request that plaintiff be prohibited from having access to the discovery produced pursuant to the court's previous order is denied and such a limitation shall not be included in the parties stipulated protective order. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OLEGS KOZACENKO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2196 MCE DAD

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
OFFICER ANDREW P. MURRILL, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
On October 18, 2013, this matter came before the court for hearing of plaintiff’s

18
19

motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion was granted and defendants were ordered to produce

20

documents subject to the parties entering into a stipulated protective order. Thereafter, the parties

21

informed the court that they had reached an impasse as to a term of the stipulated protective

22

order.

23

Accordingly, this matter again came before the court on November 22, 2013, for

24

hearing of the parties’ disagreement with respect to the terms of the stipulated protective order.

25

Attorney Stewart Katz appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. Deputy Attorney

26

General Jill Scally appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendants.

27
28

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons
set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request that
1

1

plaintiff be prohibited from having access to the discovery produced pursuant to the court’s

2

previous order is denied and such a limitation shall not be included in the parties’ stipulated

3

protective order.

4

Dated: November 22, 2013

5
6
7
8

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\kozacenko2196.oah.112213

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2