Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06634/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06634-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BRIAN HEISLER, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAXTOR CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-6634 JF (PVT)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

PROPERLY NOTICE ITS MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE

ORDER 

On May 15, 2007, Defendant filed a document erroneously entitled a “Motion for

Administrated Relief Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11.” Based on the moving papers, 1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall promptly serve and file a proper notice of

motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(a) for its motion for entry of a protective order. Local Rule 7-11,

cited by Defendant, does not apply to motions for protective orders. Local Rule 7-11 by its terms

applies only to “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute,

Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge.” Because protective orders are

governed by a federal rule (F.R.C.P. 26(c)), Local Rule 7-11 is inapplicable. If Defendant believes

the motion should be heard on shortened time, it must comply with the requirements of Local Rule 6.

Dated: 5/16/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06634-JF Document 31 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 1