Haines

] 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 || RONALD HAINES, Case No. 2:25-cv-01132-DC-CSK 1] Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 26) || WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 15 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 17 || 26), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See |} L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following || clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 21 || jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” 22 || L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, 23 || at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain 24 || jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus,…