Fahrni v. County of Tulare

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 28, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01265·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIFFANY FAHRNI, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01265-ADA-SAB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. (ECF No. 20) COUNTY OF TULARE, et al., Defendants. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The stipulated protective order filed on November 27, 2023, (ECF No. 20), is ENTERED; 2. The provisions of the parties’ stipulation and this protective order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court; 3. The parties are advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, any documents which are to be filed under seal will require a written request which complies with Local Rule 141; 4. The party making a request to file documents under seal shall be required to show either good cause or compelling reasons to seal the documents, depending on the type of filing, Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); and 5. If a party’s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the Court, then the previously filed material shall be immediately accepted by the court and become information in the public record and the information will be deemed filed as of the date that the request to file the Protected Information under seal was made. Db IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ November 28, 2023

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fahrni v. County of Tulare, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Fahrni v. County of Tulare (Fahrni v. County of Tulare) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)