BERSTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CHRISTMAS, Civ 2:11-cv-1541-KJM-JFM. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120117825
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge. On January 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on defendants' December 2, 2011 motion to retain confidentiality and December 6, 2011 motion for terminating sanctions. Rajiv Dharnidharka appeared for plaintiff. Yuridia Caire appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motions and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' December 2, 2011 motio
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge. On January 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on defendants' December 2, 2011 motion to retain confidentiality and December 6, 2011 motion for terminating sanctions. Rajiv Dharnidharka appeared for plaintiff. Yuridia Caire appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motions and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' December 2, 2011 motion..
More
ORDER
JOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge.
On January 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on defendants' December 2, 2011 motion to retain confidentiality and December 6, 2011 motion for terminating sanctions. Rajiv Dharnidharka appeared for plaintiff. Yuridia Caire appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motions and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' December 2, 2011 motion to retain confidentiality is denied. The undersigned finds that defendants have not met their burden of establishing that any of the documents, let alone all of the documents, warrant the "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation. Defendants' belated attempt during the hearing on their motion to offer for the first time alleged exemplars of a few of these documents was improper.
2. In light of the ruling above, defendants' December 6, 2011 motion for terminating sanctions is denied.
Source: Leagle
