Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/29/16 ordering The proposed protective order 61 submitted by counsel for defendant Delgado and counsel for defendants Baker and Ramirez is hereby rejected. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONALD WILLIAMS,

12

No. 2:15-cv-1155 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

E. BAKER et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
The proposed protective order (ECF No. 61) submitted by counsel for defendant Delgado

17
18

and counsel for defendants Baker and Ramirez is hereby rejected. The proposed order does not

19

adequately indicate why the documents identified require the court to take any extraordinary

20

measures regarding their dissemination. Asserting that the documents are privileged under

21

California law is, by itself, not adequate, nor generally even relevant in federal court.

22

Furthermore, the order does not accurately state the court’s procedures with respect to filing

23

documents under seal.

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

If the parties wish to seek any protective order in this action, they must establish with

2

specificity a good reason for the issuance of such an order, and the provisions of the order must

3

comply with federal laws and local court procedures including Local Rule 141.

4

Dated: September 29, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
will1155.ns

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