Stivers v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., 1:19-cv-01155-DAD-EPG. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200127918
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 18.) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 22, 2020, the parties filed a "Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order." (ECF No. 18.) The Court has reviewed the proposed protective order and finds that it does not comply with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c), which requires that every proposed protective order contain the following provisions: "(1) a description of the types of inform
Summary: ORDER DENYING CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 18.) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 22, 2020, the parties filed a "Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order." (ECF No. 18.) The Court has reviewed the proposed protective order and finds that it does not comply with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c), which requires that every proposed protective order contain the following provisions: "(1) a description of the types of informa..
More
ORDER DENYING CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF NO. 18.)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
On January 22, 2020, the parties filed a "Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order." (ECF No. 18.) The Court has reviewed the proposed protective order and finds that it does not comply with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c), which requires that every proposed protective order contain the following provisions: "(1) a description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); (2) a showing of particularize need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and (3) a showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties."
Accordingly, the parties "Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order" (ECF No. 18.) is DENIED without prejudice to the parties' ability to file a corrected stipulation and protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
