Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Dometic Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE Case No. 1:19-cv-00800-DAD-EPG

COMPANY,

ORDER REJECTING STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 12)

DOMETIC CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16 On October 9, 2019, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 12.) As discussed below, the Stipulated Protective Order is rejected because it fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). However, the parties are granted leave to re-submit a compliant stipulated protective order for Court approval. “In the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.” Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“The purpose of the federal discovery rules, as pointed out in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, is to force a full disclosure.”) Thus, “[a]s a general rule, the public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during…