Arispe v. County of Sacramento, 2:18-cv-02017 JAM AC. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181012a76
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2018
Summary: PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 10), is DISAPPROVED because it does not contain proper signatures in accordance with the Local Rules. ECF No. 10 at 12. The court also notes that the stipulation contains references to non-existent local rules in the paragraph on judicial intervention. Id. at 6.3. Before submitting an amended stipulation, the parties are directed to review the Eastern Distric
Summary: PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 10), is DISAPPROVED because it does not contain proper signatures in accordance with the Local Rules. ECF No. 10 at 12. The court also notes that the stipulation contains references to non-existent local rules in the paragraph on judicial intervention. Id. at 6.3. Before submitting an amended stipulation, the parties are directed to review the Eastern District..
More
PROTECTIVE ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 10), is DISAPPROVED because it does not contain proper signatures in accordance with the Local Rules. ECF No. 10 at 12. The court also notes that the stipulation contains references to non-existent local rules in the paragraph on judicial intervention. Id. at ¶ 6.3. Before submitting an amended stipulation, the parties are directed to review the Eastern District of California Local Rules, with particular attention to Local Rule 131(c) and Local Rule 251. The parties should also review the undersigned's Standing Orders on the court's website, which address the informal discovery dispute resolution process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
