Delashaw v. Seattle Times Company, C18-0537JLR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180904d95
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' proposed stipulated protective order. The parties have asked the court to enter this stipulation as an order of the court. ( See Stip. (Dkt. # 40).) The parties, however, have failed to comply with Local Rule 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." Id. "Parties that wish to
Summary: ORDER JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is the parties' proposed stipulated protective order. The parties have asked the court to enter this stipulation as an order of the court. ( See Stip. (Dkt. # 40).) The parties, however, have failed to comply with Local Rule 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." Id. "Parties that wish to ..
More
ORDER
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is the parties' proposed stipulated protective order. The parties have asked the court to enter this stipulation as an order of the court. (See Stip. (Dkt. # 40).) The parties, however, have failed to comply with Local Rule 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." Id. "Parties that wish to depart from the model order must provide the court with a redlined version identifying departures from the model." Id. The parties' proposed stipulated protective order departs significantly from the court's model order, but the parties have failed to provide a red-lined version as required under the local rules. Accordingly, the court DENIES the parties' stipulated motion for entry of their agreed protective order (Dkt. # 40), but without prejudice to re-filing in a manner that comports with the court's local rules.
Source: Leagle
