Tremko v. Capital Bank ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Krysta Tremko, 2:24-cv-00307-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order Denying: Stipulated Discovery Plan (ECF No. 66) 6 Capital Bank, et al., Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 67) 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court are the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (“Stipulated 9 Discovery Plan”) (ECF No. 66) and the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 67). 10 11 I. Stipulated Discovery Plan (ECF No. 66) 12 The Court denies the Stipulated Discovery Plan (ECF No. 66) because the proposed plan 13 requests more than 180 days for discovery without explanation and does not comply with LR 26-1(a). 14 15 II. Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 67) 16 The Court denies the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 67) because the proposed stipulation 17 suggests that designating documents as confidential is sufficient to seal such documents, which it is not. 18 The stipulation also fails to specifically address LR IA 10-5 or Kamakana v. City and County of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, and the requirement to file a separate motion 20 to seal. 21 ACCORDINGLY, 22 IT IS ORDERED that: 23 1. The Stipulated Discovery Plan (ECF No. 66) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with 24 leave to re-file in compliance with LR 26-1(a). 25 1 2. The Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 67) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 2 with leave to re-file in compliance with LR IA 10-5 or Kamakana v. City and County of 3 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny. 4 DATED this 2"4 day of May 2024. Jee] oo 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. por fi \ reheat esa 7 United States Mdgistwate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25