Matthew Jackson v. Unicity International, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6], Matthew Jackson, Case No. 2:25-cv-00738-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 53] Unicity International, Inc., et al., 10 Defendant.

11 Pending before the Court is a stipulated confidentiality agreement and proposed protective 12] order. Docket No. 53. Parties are permitted to agree to discovery procedures, including 13] confidentiality protections, without judicial approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b); see also Cross v. 14] Walmart, Inc., 350 F.R.D. 395, 398-99 (D. Nev. 2025). The stipulation does not explain why 15] judicial oversight is required as to the parties’ discovery agreement. To the contrary, the 16] stipulation acknowledges the binding effect of this agreement without judicial approval. See Docket No. 53 at 11 (“Counsel agree to be bound by the terms set forth herein with regard to any 18] Confidential Materials that have been produced before the Court signs this Stipulation and 19] Protective Order”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the stipulated confidentiality agreement and proposed protective order.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: January 23, 2026.

23 ZEN EZ.

Nancy J. Ko 24 United States Magistrate Judge