Ramirez Medina v. Asher
ORDER denying parties' 100 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,
CASE NO. C17-218 RSM
ORDER DENYING PARTIES’
PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective
Order. Dkt. #100. The Court has reviewed the proposed Protective Order and objects to the
following proposals by the parties:
with respect to sealing documents containing the Confidential Information
this Stipulated Protective Order satisfies the parties’ meet-and-confer requirements
identified in paragraph 2 of this Stipulated Protective Order;
If the Court denies any motion to seal filed by either side, the document will remain
under seal, but will not be considered by the Court, unless a redacted version of the
document is subsequently filed or was contemporaneously filed with the document
under seal; and
ORDER - 1
In the event that either party files a motion, opposition, or reply under seal, the
provisions of LCR 5(g)(5) shall apply, except that parties shall have seven days
from the date of their under-seal filing to file the redacted versions required under
Dkt. #100at 4-7. The Court finds these terms to be inconsistent with the Court’s accepted practices
regarding motions to seal (LCR 5), inconsistent with proposed section 6.3 of the Protective Order,
and inconsistent with the standards governing motions to seal.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Protective Order (Dkt.
Nothing in this Order precludes the parties from filing a subsequent motion for a Protective
Order once these deficiencies have been addressed.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?