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)

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