Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01371/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01371-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

 Of course, reference to certain provisions of state law might be appropriate in a 1

carefully tailored proposed order, for example, as an agreed upon manner of defining trade

secrets. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS NASH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1371 GEB KJM 

vs.

KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The parties have submitted a stipulation and proposed protective order regarding

confidential and proprietary documents. References are made therein to the California Evidence

Code and California Code of Civil Procedure. As the parties are no doubt aware, this action is

venued in the United States District Court and accordingly is governed by the Federal Rules of

Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the court recognizes the use of

wordprocessing technology promotes the use of boilerplate language in documents submitted to

the court, the court also discourages the unthinking utilization of such boilerplate.1

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01371-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proposed protective order is

denied without prejudice to its resubmission with appropriate references to federal law.

DATED: January 17, 2007.

006

nash.po.den

Case 2:06-cv-01371-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2