Ballentine et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 80

ORDER that the parties are instructed to file a stipulated protective order containing the language "This duty exists irrespective of the duty to consult on the underlying motion." Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/22/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

BRIAN BALLENTINE, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Proposed Protective Order (#78) and
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Protective Order (#79), both filed on October 20, 2015.
Plaintiff represents that the Parties could not agree on a stipulated order. Specifically, the
Parties disagree on two sentences in the protective order, highlighted here in bold:
However, in the event a Party seeks to file Protected Materials with
the Court, those documents shall be filed under seal pursuant to Rule
10-5 of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court of
Nevada. The Party filing such Protected Materials may assert in the
accompanying motion any reasons why the Protected Materials
should not, in fact, be kept under seal and the Designating Party, who
must be properly noticed, may likewise file a motion asserting its
position that the Protected Material merits protection under Rule
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In such instances,
absent extraordinary circumstances making prior consultation
impractical or inappropriate, the Party seeking to submit the
Protected Material to the Court shall first consult with counsel
for Designating Party. This duty exists irrespective of the duty to
consult on the underlying motion.

24
Proposed Protective Orders, page 7.
25
Plaintiffs wish to keep the sentences, and Defendants wish to have them removed because it
26
imposes an unnecessary burden. The Court has reviewed the disputed language, and finds that it
27
should remain in the protective order, with the exception of the sentence reading “This duty exists
28

1

irrespective of the duty to consult on the underlying motion.” The Parties are hereby instructed to

2

file a stipulated protective order containing this language.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2015.

5
6
7

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2