Jones

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYSON JONES, Case No. 2:24-cv-01199-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 14 (ECF No. 25) CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 18 25), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 19 L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 20 clarification. 21 The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 22 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” 23 L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, 24 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 || jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, 2 || the Court will…