1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Marlena Barton, 2:25-cv-00156-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff, s || vs. ORDER DENYING STIPULATION

6 Sunbeam Products, Inc., et al., 7 Defendants. 8 IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. The parties 9 || again fail to address the Court’s Order at ECF No. 34. That order advised the parties that filing 10 || documents under seal not only requires the parties to follow the procedures set forth at Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 }|5.2 and LR IA 10-5, but to also make substantive showing under Kamakana v. City and County of 12 || Honolulu,

, 1178- 79 (9th Cir. 2006) and its progeny. The parties, however, continue to 13 || submit a stipulation that is not compliant. To be more explicit, the parties must please revise Paragraph 14 || 10 to include the requirements under FRCP 5.2 and to make a substantive showing under Kamakana v. 15 || City and County of Honolulu,

, 1178- 79 (9th Cir. 2006) and its progeny. The parties are 16 || granted leave and are requested to submit an amended stipulation by May 30, 2025. 17 18 DATED this 27" day of May 2025. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. J ip Po 20 , A \ 21 BA. Maxiligeo D. Go ullier TI] 9 nited States fog Judge 23 24 25