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)

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