Young v. Cree, Inc.

Filing 77

Discovery Order re: 75 Consent MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/18/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEFF YOUNG,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-06252-YGR (TSH)
ORDER RE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE
ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 75

CREE, INC.,
Defendant.

12
13

Defendant Cree, Inc., proposes a protective order and states that Plaintiff Jeff Young

14

agrees to it. ECF No. 75. However, the dispute resolution procedure in paragraph 5 of the

15

proposed order conflicts with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order. Specifically,

16

paragraph 5 states that “[i]f the parties cannot in good faith resolve the dispute, the Receiving

17

Party may move the Court for an order removing or changing the designation . . .” and that “[i]n

18

addition, the challenging party may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any

19

time . . .,” whereas the Standing Order requires disputes such as those to be raised in a joint letter

20

brief. The proposed protective order is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the

21

submission of a proposed protective order that rephrases paragraph 5 to state that such disputes

22

shall be raised in a joint letter brief.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: January 18, 2019

26
27
28

THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge