J.S.
J.S. v. County of Fresno
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 J.S., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01070-KES-EPG Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
v. (ECF No. 34) COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,
Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation1 for the Court to approve their 17 proposed protective order. (ECF No. 34). Upon review, the Court will deny the parties’ request 18 without prejudice because it does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules and the Court’s 19 established practices. 20 Among other things, the proposed protective order fails to address Local Rule 141.1(c), 21 which sets out various requirements for a protective order. For example, the parties define 22 “confidential information or items” to mean “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).” (ECF No. 34 at 2) (minor alterations). But this definition improperly allows the parties to deem…