Pinedo

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE PINEDO, Case No. 2:24-cv-03242-JAM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING AMENDED

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

14 ELIAS MCKNIGHT, et al.,

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 8) 16 17 18 The parties filed a stipulated protective order on January 10, 2025 (ECF No. 6), 19 which the Court declined to approve because it did not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c) 20 (ECF No. 7). The parties filed a second stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 8), 21 which the Court has reviewed and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the 22 Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the amended stipulated 23 protective order1, subject to the following clarification. 24 The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 25 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 26 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2…