Longordo v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

Filing 18

ORDER Striking 16 MOTION for Protective Order -Stipulated filed by Pasquale Longordo and 17 Notice to Withdraw Motion filed by Pasquale Longordo and Rejecting the Parties' Proposed Protective Order. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PASQUALE LONGORDO, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-11230 vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. _____________________________/ ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. 16) AND NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. 17) AND REJECTING THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff Pasquale Longordo improperly electronically filed a copy of the parties’ proposed protective order in PDF format via CM/ECF on September 27, 2013 (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff titled this filing “Motion for Protective Order – Stipulated.” Later that day, Plaintiff electronically filed the same document via CM/ECF under the title “Notice by Pasquale Longordo of withdrawal of Motion for Protective Order – Stipulated” (Dkt. 17). Plaintiff subsequently submitted a copy of the proposed protective order to the Court as a Microsoft Word document using the link located under the Utilities section of CM/ECF. Although Plaintiff ultimately submitted the proposed protective order correctly, see E.D. Mich. ECF Filing Policies and Procedures R. 1(j) and 11, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 16) and notice (Dkt. 17) remain on the docket. Accordingly, the Court strikes these documents as improperly filed and moot. Moreover, the Court notes that the proposed protective order Plaintiff properly submitted (1) still contains track-change edits and (2) does not contain the language regarding the sealing of documents that is required by the Case Management Order entered in this case. See Case Management Order at 2-3 (Dkt. 13). Indeed, the proposed protective order appears to rely on the Local Rules for the Western District of Michigan rather than this Court’s. Accordingly, the Court rejects the parties’ proposed protective order. The parties may re-submit a clean version of the document that complies with the requirements of both the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Case Management Order in this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2013 Flint, Michigan s/Mark A. Goldsmith MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 1, 2013. s/Deborah J. Goltz DEBORAH J. GOLTZ Case Manager

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?