Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. v. Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP, 18cv2494-WQH (MSB). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190927b25
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF NO. 60] MICHAEL S. BERG , Magistrate Judge . On September 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to enter their Protective Order [ECF No. 60]. In their joint motion, the parties asked the Court to resolve a single dispute regarding paragraph 12 of the protective order, wherein the parties disagreed about whether they should be permitted to share confidential material produced in this action with the parties and their
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF NO. 60] MICHAEL S. BERG , Magistrate Judge . On September 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to enter their Protective Order [ECF No. 60]. In their joint motion, the parties asked the Court to resolve a single dispute regarding paragraph 12 of the protective order, wherein the parties disagreed about whether they should be permitted to share confidential material produced in this action with the parties and their ..
More
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF NO. 60]
MICHAEL S. BERG, Magistrate Judge.
On September 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to enter their Protective Order [ECF No. 60]. In their joint motion, the parties asked the Court to resolve a single dispute regarding paragraph 12 of the protective order, wherein the parties disagreed about whether they should be permitted to share confidential material produced in this action with the parties and their counsel in Mabvax Therapeutic Holdings, Inc. v. Honig, et al., Case No. 19cv9810-WQH (MSB) (the "related Case"). (See ECF No. 60 at 2.) The Court held a telephonic discovery conference to discuss this issue with counsel for the parties on September 25, 2019. For the reasons discussed at the conference, and in the absence of any contradictory authority, the Court declines to add any substance to the protective order that has not been agreed to by both parties. The Court will therefore include the word "non-confidential" as requested by Defendants in paragraph 12. The Court has considered the remainder of the Stipulated Protective Order and, for good cause shown, GRANTS the joint motion. The Court will enter the parties' stipulated protective order, described above, separate from this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
