GROSS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY LAS VEGAS, 2:11-cv-01602-JCM-CWH. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140409d76
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. The parties submitted a Stipulated Protective Order (#55),which the Court reviewed and entered. This order modifies the parties' stipulated protective order with respect to the sealing of documents. The protective order was approved to facilitate the parties' discovery exchanges. However, the parties have not made an individualized showing that a protective order is necessary to protect their secret or other confidential information or established t
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. The parties submitted a Stipulated Protective Order (#55),which the Court reviewed and entered. This order modifies the parties' stipulated protective order with respect to the sealing of documents. The protective order was approved to facilitate the parties' discovery exchanges. However, the parties have not made an individualized showing that a protective order is necessary to protect their secret or other confidential information or established th..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
The parties submitted a Stipulated Protective Order (#55),which the Court reviewed and entered. This order modifies the parties' stipulated protective order with respect to the sealing of documents. The protective order was approved to facilitate the parties' discovery exchanges. However, the parties have not made an individualized showing that a protective order is necessary to protect their secret or other confidential information or established that disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm. Any party that seeks to submit documents under seal in this case must do so consistent with the procedural requirements set forth in Local Rule 10-5(b). Additionally, any request to submit documents under seal must comply with the requirements set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) and its progeny.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
