Young v. Cree, Inc., 17-cv-06252-YGR (TSH). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190122b86
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 75 THOMAS S. HIXSON , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Cree, Inc., proposes a protective order and states that Plaintiff Jeff Young agrees to it. ECF No. 75. However, the dispute resolution procedure in paragraph 5 of the proposed order conflicts with the undersigned's Discovery Standing Order. Specifically, paragraph 5 states that "[i]f the parties cannot in good faith resolve the dispute, the Receiving Party may move the Court for an order remo
Summary: ORDER RE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 75 THOMAS S. HIXSON , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Cree, Inc., proposes a protective order and states that Plaintiff Jeff Young agrees to it. ECF No. 75. However, the dispute resolution procedure in paragraph 5 of the proposed order conflicts with the undersigned's Discovery Standing Order. Specifically, paragraph 5 states that "[i]f the parties cannot in good faith resolve the dispute, the Receiving Party may move the Court for an order remov..
More
ORDER RE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 75
THOMAS S. HIXSON, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Cree, Inc., proposes a protective order and states that Plaintiff Jeff Young agrees to it. ECF No. 75. However, the dispute resolution procedure in paragraph 5 of the proposed order conflicts with the undersigned's Discovery Standing Order. Specifically, paragraph 5 states that "[i]f the parties cannot in good faith resolve the dispute, the Receiving Party may move the Court for an order removing or changing the designation . . ." and that "[i]n addition, the challenging party may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time . . .," whereas the Standing Order requires disputes such as those to be raised in a joint letter brief. The proposed protective order is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the submission of a proposed protective order that rephrases paragraph 5 to state that such disputes shall be raised in a joint letter brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
