Vazquez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, 16cv2749-WQH (BLM). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171117b50
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH MODIFICATION [ECF No. 44] BARBARA L. MAJOR , Magistrate Judge . On November 16, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 44. The Court has considered the Stipulated Protective Order and, for good cause shown, the joint motion is GRANTED with the following modification: Paragraph 12.3 should read: Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designa
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH MODIFICATION [ECF No. 44] BARBARA L. MAJOR , Magistrate Judge . On November 16, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 44. The Court has considered the Stipulated Protective Order and, for good cause shown, the joint motion is GRANTED with the following modification: Paragraph 12.3 should read: Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designat..
More
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH MODIFICATION
[ECF No. 44]
BARBARA L. MAJOR, Magistrate Judge.
On November 16, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 44. The Court has considered the Stipulated Protective Order and, for good cause shown, the joint motion is GRANTED with the following modification:
Paragraph 12.3 should read: Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with the procedures explained in Section 2.j of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and Civil Local Rule 79.2. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. A sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material. In addition, in accordance with Judge Major's preferences, a party must file a `public' version of any document that it seeks to file under seal. In the public version, the party may redact only that information that is deemed `Confidential.' The party should file the redacted document(s) simultaneously with a joint motion or ex parte application requesting that the confidential portions of the document(s) be filed under seal and setting forth good cause for the request. If a Receiving Party's request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle