WILLIAMS v. BAKER, 2:15-cv-1155 MCE CKD P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160930b64
Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . The proposed protective order (ECF No. 61) submitted by counsel for defendant Delgado and counsel for defendants Baker and Ramirez is hereby rejected. The proposed order does not adequately indicate why the documents identified require the court to take any extraordinary measures regarding their dissemination. Asserting that the documents are privileged under California law is, by itself, not adequate, nor generally even relevant in federal cour
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . The proposed protective order (ECF No. 61) submitted by counsel for defendant Delgado and counsel for defendants Baker and Ramirez is hereby rejected. The proposed order does not adequately indicate why the documents identified require the court to take any extraordinary measures regarding their dissemination. Asserting that the documents are privileged under California law is, by itself, not adequate, nor generally even relevant in federal court..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
The proposed protective order (ECF No. 61) submitted by counsel for defendant Delgado and counsel for defendants Baker and Ramirez is hereby rejected. The proposed order does not adequately indicate why the documents identified require the court to take any extraordinary measures regarding their dissemination. Asserting that the documents are privileged under California law is, by itself, not adequate, nor generally even relevant in federal court. Furthermore, the order does not accurately state the court's procedures with respect to filing documents under seal.
If the parties wish to seek any protective order in this action, they must establish with specificity a good reason for the issuance of such an order, and the provisions of the order must comply with federal laws and local court procedures including Local Rule 141.
Source: Leagle
