Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, et al., No. 2:20-cv-0903 KJM DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On September 14, 2020, this matter came before the assigned District Judge for a Status 19 Conference. (ECF No. 14.) At that hearing the assigned District Judge ordered the parties to 20 attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed protective order and, if an agreement could not be 21 reach, to submit separate briefing. The parties did not reach an agreement. 22 Accordingly, defendants filed a proposed protective order on September 28, 2020. (ECF 23 No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed a response on September 30, 2020, opposing entry of defendants’ 24 proposed protective order, or any protective order. (ECF No. 19.) The matter has been referred 25 to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). 26 “It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court 27 order to the contrary, presumptively public.” …