Summary
This document is an order approving and incorporating the parties’ stipulated protective order in Aguinaldo v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. The order addresses sealing requests, confidentiality designations, discovery disputes, inadvertent production under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, modifications, and post-termination jurisdiction. It was issued by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 18, 2025.
Holdings
- The court approved and incorporated the parties' stipulated protective order, subject to the additional provisions in the court's order.
- Requests to seal must be made by motion before the judge who will decide the matter related to the request, and a confidentiality designation under the protective order does not itself authorize filing a document under seal. A written court order is required, and the request must comply with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.
- The parties must follow the procedures in Eastern District of California Local Rule 251 for unresolved disputes concerning the protective order, including disputes concerning inadvertently produced materials under Federal Rule of Evidence 502; absent good cause, the court will not hear such discovery disputes ex parte or on shortened time.
- The parties may not modify the protective order without court approval, and the court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms after the action is terminated.
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties' stipulated protective order should be approved and incorporated into the court's order.
- What procedures and standards govern requests to seal documents covered by the protective order.
- What procedures govern disputes concerning the protective order, including disputes involving inadvertently produced materials under Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
Disposition
approved
Cases Cited (2)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016)(followed)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…