From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scoy v. New Albertson's Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 7, 2010
No. 2:08-cv-02237 MCE KJN (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:08-cv-02237 MCE KJN.

July 7, 2010


ORDER


Presently before the court is the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order," which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination of information the parties seek to designate as "Protected Information" or as "Confidential." (Dkt. No. 23.) For the reasons that follow, the undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order as drafted.

This court's Local Rule 141.1 provides, in part, that "[e]very proposed protective order shall" contain certain provisions, including "[a] showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties." Local Rule 144.1(d)(3). The parties' proposed stipulated protective order does not contain this required showing. Accordingly, the undersigned will not approve the stipulation as proposed. However, the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order that meets all of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order" is not approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Scoy v. New Albertson's Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 7, 2010
No. 2:08-cv-02237 MCE KJN (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)
Case details for

Scoy v. New Albertson's Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA VAN SCOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 7, 2010

Citations

No. 2:08-cv-02237 MCE KJN (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2010)

Citing Cases

Nellams v. Eagle Marine Servs., Ltd.

Indeed, preemption does not apply "where the court can uphold such independent state claims without…