Tabbert v. Howmedica Ostenonics Corp d/b/a Stryker Howmedica Osteonics
Filing
27
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(d) ORDER, granting 24 Motion for Protective Order and adopting Agreed Protective Order [24-1]. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (SK, Case Administrator)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3
4
THOMAS TABBERT,
No. 2:15-CV-0039-SMJ
5
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
9
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP.
d/b/a STRYKER HOWMEDICA
OSTEONICS, a New Jersey
corporation,
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE 502(d) ORDER
Defendant.
10
11
Before the Court, without oral argument, is the parties’ Joint Motion for
12
Entry of Agreed Protective Order and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Order,
13
ECF No. 24. Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Conference Notice, ECF No. 15,
14
the parties conferred about the need for an order addressing Fed. R. Evid. 502(d)
15
as well as a confidentiality and protective order. The parties have drafted, and
16
request that the Court enter, a Stipulated Protective Order. Having reviewed the
17
pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and grants the
18
parties’ motion.
19
///
20
//
ORDER - 1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Order, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED.
3
4
The parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order and
2.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court adopts
5
and enters the parties’ Agreed Protective Order, ECF No. 24-1.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
7
8
and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 22nd day of June 2015.
9
_______________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q:\SMJ\Civil\2015\Tabbert v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp-0039\ord.grant.protective.lc1.docx
ORDER - 2
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?