Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00139/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00139-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332ed Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1 

18cv139-JM (BLM) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHLEEN BACON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BED BATH & BEYOND OF CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv139-JM (BLM) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 

[ECF No. 17] 

On September 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court enter 

the parties’ Protective Order. ECF No. 17. Upon the Court’s review of the Proposed Protective 

Order, the Court notes that paragraph 8 regarding “[i]nformation designated ‘CONFIDENTIAL’” 

contains no explanation of how independent experts may view such confidential information. 

See ECF No. 17-1 at 5. Also, in paragraph 11, the parties’ proposed language fails to include 

Judge Major’s preferred language as set forth below: 

To file a document under seal, the parties must comply with the

procedures explained in Section II.j of the Electronic Case Filing 

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of California and Civil Local 

Rule 79.2. In addition, in accordance with Judge Major’s 

preferences, a party must file a ‘public’ version of any 

document that it seeks to file under seal. In the public 

version, the party may redact only that information that is 

Case 3:18-cv-00139-JM-BLM Document 18 Filed 09/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18cv139-JM (BLM) 

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

deemed ‘Confidential.’ The party should file the redacted 

document(s) simultaneously with a joint motion or ex parte 

application requesting that the confidential portions of the 

document(s) be filed under seal and setting forth good 

cause for the request. 

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ Joint Motion for 

Entry of Protective Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 9/10/2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00139-JM-BLM Document 18 Filed 09/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2