Boggs v. Victoria's Secret et al
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/6/16 ORDERING that the parties' proposed stipulated protective order 19 is DISAPPROVED, but without prejudice to submission of an amended version. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BARBARA BOGGS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-1920-KJM-KJN
v.
ORDER
VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC,
15
Defendant.
16
On May 27, 2016, the parties filed a proposed stipulated protective order for the court’s
17
18
consideration and approval. (ECF No. 19.) For the reasons discussed below, the court
19
DECLINES to approve the proposed stipulated protective order, but without prejudice to
20
submission of an amended version.
The court will not approve a stipulated protective order that provides that the designation
21
22
of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant to the order
23
automatically entitles the parties to file such a document with the court under seal. The parties
24
must instead comply with Local Rules 140 and 141 with respect to requests to seal or redact
25
documents, as well as any additional provisions related to sealing specifically outlined in the
26
assigned district judge’s scheduling order. (See ECF No. 7 at 5, Section VII [Sealing].) An
27
appropriate stipulated protective order shall incorporate and refer to such provisions.
28
////
1
1
The court also declines to approve a stipulated protective order that limits the testimony of
2
parties or non-parties, or the use of certain documents, at any court hearing or trial—such
3
determinations will only be made by the court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate
4
motion.
5
Finally, pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over
6
enforcement of the terms of a stipulated protective order after the action is terminated.
7
Accordingly, an appropriate stipulated protective order shall not include such a provision.
8
In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ proposed stipulated
9
protective order (ECF No. 19) is DISAPPROVED, but without prejudice to submission of an
10
amended version.
11
Dated: June 6, 2016
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?