MARTIN v. CITY OF VALLEJO, 2:14-cv-0554 DAD PS. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150406908
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . On February 20, 2015, the court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration. 1 (Dkt. No. 45.) That order also directed defendants "to file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve of copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff." ( Id. at 2.) On February 27, 2015, defendants filed a proposed stipulated protective order. (Dkt. No. 46.) Defendants, however, did not file a proof of service wi
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . On February 20, 2015, the court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration. 1 (Dkt. No. 45.) That order also directed defendants "to file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve of copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff." ( Id. at 2.) On February 27, 2015, defendants filed a proposed stipulated protective order. (Dkt. No. 46.) Defendants, however, did not file a proof of service wit..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
On February 20, 2015, the court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration.1 (Dkt. No. 45.) That order also directed defendants "to file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve of copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff." (Id. at 2.) On February 27, 2015, defendants filed a proposed stipulated protective order. (Dkt. No. 46.) Defendants, however, did not file a proof of service with that proposed protective order. Therefore, the court cannot determine if defendants have served a copy of the proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff.
Accordingly, defendants shall file a proof of service of the proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff within 7 days of the date of this order.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 21.)
2. If it appears from the proof of service filed by defendants that plaintiff had not previously been served with a copy of the proposed stipulated protective order, plaintiff shall have fourteen days after being served with a copy of defendants' proposed stipulated protective order to file objections, if any, to the defendants' proposed stipulated protective order.
Source: Leagle
