Footman
Kaylin Footman v. County of Sacramento, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KAYLIN FOOTMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-03203-DC-CSK 9 Plaintiff,
V. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 20) Defendants. 13 14 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 20), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 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 20 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” 21 L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, 22 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain
jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court…