Summary
This document is an order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approving the parties’ stipulated protective order in Roddy Mac v. EA Family Services. The protective order governs the designation, handling, disclosure, challenge, filing, and final disposition of confidential discovery materials. The court clarified that it will not retain jurisdiction to enforce the protective order after the action is closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should approve the parties' stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material.
- Whether the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the protective order after the action is closed.
Holdings
- The court approved the parties' stipulated protective order because it complied with the relevant authorities and the court's Local Rule 141.1.
- The court would not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the protective order once the action is closed.
Key quotations
“will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” (at 1)
Factual background
The parties' discovery in this action involves confidential, proprietary, and private information. They agreed to procedures governing designation, use, challenge, filing, and final disposition of protected material and asked the court to enter the stipulated protective order. The court found that the proposed order complied with applicable authorities and Local Rule 141.1, subject to a clarification concerning post-closure jurisdiction.
Procedural history
Plaintiff Roddy Mac filed this action against EA Family Services on September 30, 2024. The parties submitted a stipulated protective order as ECF No. 16. The court approved the order, clarifying that it would not retain jurisdiction to enforce the order after the action is closed.