Hughson Nut, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., 1:17-cv-1178-DAD-SAB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180314982
Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 10) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On March 9, 2018, the parties filed an agreed protective order. (ECF No. 10.) The parties seek for the Court to retain jurisdiction after the termination of this action to enforce the terms of the agreed protective order. However, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction without a showing of good cause, including why the parties are without an enforcement mechanism absent this Court retaining jurisdiction.
Summary: ORDER RE AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 10) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On March 9, 2018, the parties filed an agreed protective order. (ECF No. 10.) The parties seek for the Court to retain jurisdiction after the termination of this action to enforce the terms of the agreed protective order. However, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction without a showing of good cause, including why the parties are without an enforcement mechanism absent this Court retaining jurisdiction. ..
More
ORDER RE AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 10)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
On March 9, 2018, the parties filed an agreed protective order. (ECF No. 10.) The parties seek for the Court to retain jurisdiction after the termination of this action to enforce the terms of the agreed protective order. However, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction without a showing of good cause, including why the parties are without an enforcement mechanism absent this Court retaining jurisdiction. The Court shall approve the agreed protective order with the exception of the term that the Court retain jurisdiction upon termination of the action to enforce the terms of the order.
Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The protective order is approved with the exception that the Court declines to retain jurisdiction upon the termination of the action;
2. The parties are advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, any documents which are to be filed under seal will require a written request which complies with Local Rule 141; and
3. The party making a request to file documents under seal shall be required to show good cause for documents attached to a nondispositive motion or compelling reasons for documents attached to a dispositive motion. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
