Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01920-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA BOGGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1920-KJM-KJN

ORDER

On May 27, 2016, the parties filed a proposed stipulated protective order for the court’s 

consideration and approval. (ECF No. 19.) For the reasons discussed below, the court 

DECLINES to approve the proposed stipulated protective order, but without prejudice to 

submission of an amended version.

The court will not approve a stipulated protective order that provides that the designation 

of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant to the order 

automatically entitles the parties to file such a document with the court under seal. The parties 

must instead comply with Local Rules 140 and 141 with respect to requests to seal or redact 

documents, as well as any additional provisions related to sealing specifically outlined in the 

assigned district judge’s scheduling order. (See ECF No. 7 at 5, Section VII [Sealing].) An 

appropriate stipulated protective order shall incorporate and refer to such provisions.

////

Case 2:15-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 06/06/16 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

27

28

2

The court also declines to approve a stipulated protective order that limits the testimony of 

parties or non-parties, or the use of certain documents, at any court hearing or trial—such 

determinations will only be made by the court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate 

motion.

Finally, pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over 

enforcement of the terms of a stipulated protective order after the action is terminated. 

Accordingly, an appropriate stipulated protective order shall not include such a provision.

In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ proposed stipulated 

protective order (ECF No. 19) is DISAPPROVED, but without prejudice to submission of an 

amended version.

Dated: June 6, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2