Jimenez
Robert Andrew Jimenez v. State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
] 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT ANDREW JIMENEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-01196-DAD-CSK 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED 4 y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 17) 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
13 AND REHABILITATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 17 | 17), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 18 || L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 19 || clarification. 20 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…