Peters v. PNC Bank National Association et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/20/15. The Court does NOT APPROVE the filed stipulated proposed protective order 18 , or the emailed stipulation. The parties are free to re-submit the stipulation and proposed order in accordance with the Local Rules. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAXON S. PETERS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1616 TLN AC

v.

ORDER

PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16

Plaintiff and defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. have filed a stipulated

17
18

proposed protective order. ECF No. 18. Counsel for plaintiff emailed a proposed protective

19

order to Chambers, correcting most of the incorrect Local Rule references in the filed document.1

20

However, the parties have not filed a corrected document with the Clerk. The court believes that

21

it is the better practice to file the actual stipulated proposed order which the parties want the court

22

to sign. See E.D. Cal. R. 141.1(b)(1) (proposed stipulated protective order to be submitted in

23

accordance with Local Rule 143), and 143(a)(1) (stipulations shall be “filed”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the court does NOT APPROVE the filed

24
25

stipulated proposed protective order (ECF No. 18), or the emailed stipulation. The parties are

26

////

27

1

The emailed version still relies on “Local Rule 7,” which does not exist in this court.

28
1

1

free to re-submit the stipulation and proposed order in accordance with the Local Rules.

2

DATED: February 20, 2015

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2