Filed: Aug. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . In September 2018, the parties in this case completed a settlement conference presided over by Magistrate Judge Cota and entered into an interim settlement agreement. See ECF No. 39. The parties were unable to reach a permanent settlement agreement, and the magistrate judge referred the case back to this court for further proceedings. ECF No. 48. On June 6, 2019, the court held a status conference with the parties, where they discussed the prop
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . In September 2018, the parties in this case completed a settlement conference presided over by Magistrate Judge Cota and entered into an interim settlement agreement. See ECF No. 39. The parties were unable to reach a permanent settlement agreement, and the magistrate judge referred the case back to this court for further proceedings. ECF No. 48. On June 6, 2019, the court held a status conference with the parties, where they discussed the propr..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
In September 2018, the parties in this case completed a settlement conference presided over by Magistrate Judge Cota and entered into an interim settlement agreement. See ECF No. 39. The parties were unable to reach a permanent settlement agreement, and the magistrate judge referred the case back to this court for further proceedings. ECF No. 48. On June 6, 2019, the court held a status conference with the parties, where they discussed the propriety of the court's maintaining the interim settlement agreement under seal indefinitely. Plaintiff represented it did not believe the document meets the requirements for sealing set out in Local Rule 141. See ECF No. 53 at 2.
After the hearing, the court ordered defendants to show cause why the interim settlement should not be unsealed and filed on the public docket. ECF No. 53. The defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to unsealing. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff then filed an unopposed motion to unseal the relevant documents, which is now before the court. ECF No. 56.
The court GRANTS plaintiff's unopposed motion to unseal documents and events that are currently sealed on this court's docket. Plaintiff's motion references ECF Nos. 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45, 46 and 47. However, several of these docket entries are not sealed; rather, two are minute orders referencing sealed proceedings, ECF Nos. 35 (minutes for proceedings on 10/25/18, ordering transcripts of proceeding are sealed), 45 (minutes for proceedings on 4/3/19, the transcripts of which are sealed); one is an order sealing a proceeding and document, ECF Nos. 33 (Order sealing 9/27/18 proceedings and Stipulated Interim Settlement Agreement and Proposed Order, ECF No. 31); and one is an order granting two requests to seal, ECF No. 46 (Order sealing ECF Nos. 40, 42). The court interprets this to mean the parties request the underlying sealed documents and transcripts be unsealed. Accordingly, the court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to unseal the following: ECF Nos. 27, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 47, and the transcripts of the proceedings on 9/27/18, 10/25/18 and 4/3/19. See E.D. Cal. R. 141(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
