Salazar v. Target Corporation, 2:18-cv-01039-MMD-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20181130d36
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on that parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 17), filed on November 26, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the parties filed their first stipulated protective order. ECF No. 15. The Court denied the first stipulated protective order without prejudice and instructed the parties to submit a revised protective order clarifying which party has the burden of proof when there is a dispute as to the designation of a do
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on that parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 17), filed on November 26, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the parties filed their first stipulated protective order. ECF No. 15. The Court denied the first stipulated protective order without prejudice and instructed the parties to submit a revised protective order clarifying which party has the burden of proof when there is a dispute as to the designation of a doc..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on that parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 17), filed on November 26, 2018.
On November 20, 2018, the parties filed their first stipulated protective order. ECF No. 15. The Court denied the first stipulated protective order without prejudice and instructed the parties to submit a revised protective order clarifying which party has the burden of proof when there is a dispute as to the designation of a document as confidential.
The parties' revised protective order contains a provision regarding the burden of proof for filing a document under seal. The revised proposed protective order is still unclear whether the party, who asserts that particular information should be treated as confidential under the protective order, has the burden of proof to establish that the information or document is entitled to such protection. The parties are directed to submit a revised protective order with that clarification.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 17) is denied, without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
