Bacon v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited Liability Company, 18cv139-JM (BLM). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180911718
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF No. 17] BARBARA L. MAJOR , Magistrate Judge . On September 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 17. Upon the Court's review of the Proposed Protective Order, the Court notes that paragraph 8 regarding "[i]nformation designated `CONFIDENTIAL'" contains no explanation of how independent experts may view such confidential information. See
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF No. 17] BARBARA L. MAJOR , Magistrate Judge . On September 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 17. Upon the Court's review of the Proposed Protective Order, the Court notes that paragraph 8 regarding "[i]nformation designated `CONFIDENTIAL'" contains no explanation of how independent experts may view such confidential information. See ..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
[ECF No. 17]
BARBARA L. MAJOR, Magistrate Judge.
On September 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter the parties' Protective Order. ECF No. 17. Upon the Court's review of the Proposed Protective Order, the Court notes that paragraph 8 regarding "[i]nformation designated `CONFIDENTIAL'" contains no explanation of how independent experts may view such confidential information. See ECF No. 17-1 at 5. Also, in paragraph 11, the parties' proposed language fails to include Judge Major's preferred language as set forth below:
To file a document under seal, the parties must comply with the procedures explained in Section II.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. 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.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
