Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raygina Fox v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 28, 2012

RAYGINA FOX, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff's ex parte application seeking entry of a protective order. Dkt. no. 16. The parties have reached an agreement regarding the terms of a protective order except in one aspect regarding designating deposition testimony as confidential. The ex parte application was filed August 14, 2012. At the time of filing of the ex parte application, the discovery cut-off was set for August 24, 2012.*fn1 The action has been pending since April 27, 2011. There is no explanation in the ex parte application as to why plaintiff has delayed until the imminent cut-off of discovery to seek a protective order regarding production of documents which are seminal to plaintiff's prosecution of this action. Nor does plaintiff's counsel explain why a motion for protective order was not noticed for hearing in a timely manner on the court's regular law and motion calendar.

The parties have agreed to the terms of a protective order except for the clause regarding the designation of deposition testimony as confidential. Dkt. 16-1 at 2:15-19. Defendant has already produced confidential documents pursuant to the terms of the proposed protective order submitted as Attachment 1 to plaintiff's ex parte application. See, e.g. Dkt. no. 17-1 at p. 29, deposition testimony 100:7-11 (defense counsel stated on record that confidential materials had been provided subject to the stipulation of confidentiality in accordance with the terms agreed to by defense counsel). The court finds the terms of the stipulated protective order, as proposed by defendant, are not objectionable.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proposed protective order, submitted as Attachment 1 to plaintiff's ex parte application (dkt. no. 16-1) shall govern discovery in this matter.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.