Ghaznawi v. San Joaquin County

Opinion

1 2

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ABDUL GHAZNAWI, 2:22-CV-01988-MCE-KJN

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

15 Defendant.

18 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order. (See ECF No. 14). The 19 stipulation comports with the relevant authorities and the court’s applicable local rule. See L.R. 141.1. 20 The court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Local 21 Rules state that once an action is closed, “unless otherwise ordered, the court will not retain jurisdiction 22 over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see also, e.g., 23 MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017) (noting that 24 courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 || orders after closure of the case). Thus, the court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order 2 || once the case is closed. 4 || Dated: July 13, 2023 Arse A Abar ghaz.1988 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28