Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.,, C17-0814JLR. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20171228e64
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' stipulated motion for a protective order. (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 66).) The parties, however, fail to comply with Local Rule LCR 26(c)(2). See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(2). Pursuant to this rule, "[p]arties are encouraged to use this district's model protective order, available on the court's website," but those "[p]arties that wish to depart from t
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' stipulated motion for a protective order. (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 66).) The parties, however, fail to comply with Local Rule LCR 26(c)(2). See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(2). Pursuant to this rule, "[p]arties are encouraged to use this district's model protective order, available on the court's website," but those "[p]arties that wish to depart from th..
More
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is the parties' stipulated motion for a protective order. (Stip. Mot. (Dkt. # 66).) The parties, however, fail to comply with Local Rule LCR 26(c)(2). See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(2). Pursuant to this rule, "[p]arties are encouraged to use this district's model protective order, available on the court's website," but those "[p]arties that wish to depart from the model order must provide the court with a redlined version identifying departures from the model." Id. Here, the parties appear to use the model protective order as a basis for their filing, but they fail to provide the court a redlined version as required under the local rules. Accordingly, the court DENIES the parties' stipulated motion for a protective order (Dkt. # 66), but without prejudice to re-filing in a manner that comports with the court's local rules.
Source: Leagle
