Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying parties' 62 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, but without prejudice to re-filing in a manner that comports with the court's local rules. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 CASE NO. C17-0814JLR ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is the parties’ stipulated motion for a protective order. (Stip. Mot. 16 (Dkt. # 66).) The parties, however, fail to comply with Local Rule LCR 26(c)(2). See 17 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(2). Pursuant to this rule, “[p]arties are encouraged 18 to use this district’s model protective order, available on the court’s website,” but those 19 “[p]arties that wish to depart from the model order must provide the court with a redlined 20 version identifying departures from the model.” Id. Here, the parties appear to use the 21 model protective order as a basis for their filing, but they fail to provide the court a 22 ORDER - 1 1 redlined version as required under the local rules. Accordingly, the court DENIES the 2 parties’ stipulated motion for a protective order (Dkt. # 66), but without prejudice to 3 re-filing in a manner that comports with the court’s local rules. 4 Dated this 27th day of December, 2017. 5 6 A 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?