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.

Thomas Chitwood v. Target Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 30, 2013

THOMAS CHITWOOD
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge

Beatriz Martinez None N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court has reviewed and considered the parties' stipulated protective order. Dkt. Nos. 16-17.]

While the terms to which the parties have stipulated are generally acceptable, the Court cannot adopt the protective order "as is" for the following reasons:

1. Dispute Mechanism. The protective order should be revised to clarify that, in the event of a dispute regarding the designation of confidential information or access to confidential information, (see Dkt. No. 17, Article

III), the parties shall strictly follow the procedure for seeking judicial intervention for discovery disputes, which is set forth in Local Rule 37.

2. Filing Under Seal. The protective order should be revised to clarify that, if confidential material is included in any papers to be filed in Court, (see Dkt. No. 17, Article V), such papers shall be accompanied by an application, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.1, to file the papers -- or the confidential portion thereof -- under seal. The application shall be directed to the judge to whom the papers are directed. Pending the ruling on the application, the papers or portions thereof subject to the sealing application shall be lodged under seal.

3. Use in Court Proceedings. The Court is unwilling to include in the protective order any provisions in advance relating to presentations at court proceedings or trial. (See Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 2.) The parties will need to take up that matter with the judicial officer conducting the proceeding at the appropriate time.

4. To expedite resolution of this issue, in any revised stipulated protective order, the parties shall include the following in the caption: "[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi]."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parties of Record

20130130

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



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.