Lawrence v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James re: 57 Motion to Amend/Correct Protective Order. Parties ORDERED to meet and confer. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE
ORDER

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 57

Defendants.

12
13

On November 24, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case, while

14

Plaintiff Emil Lawrence represented himself pro se. Dkt. No. 26. On July 31, 2015, the Court

15

appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff, who now moves for administrative relief to modify the

16

protective order and enter one based on this District’s model protective order. Dkt. No. 57.

17

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds good cause likely exists to enter a revised

18

protective order. Accordingly, rather than having this matter fully briefed, the Court ORDERS the

19

parties to meet and confer in person to determine whether they can agree on a revised protective

20

order, preferably based on this District’s model. If the parties are unable to agree, they shall file a

21

joint letter in compliance with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order. Accordingly,

22

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: August 28, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge