Slaight v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (SK). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181012b12
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Court finds that good cause does not exist to seal the materials at issue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED. Accordingly, the following documents may not be filed under seal: Document or Portion of Evidence Offered in Support Order
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Court finds that good cause does not exist to seal the materials at issue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED. Accordingly, the following documents may not be filed under seal: Document or Portion of Evidence Offered in Support Order ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Court finds that good cause does not exist to seal the materials at issue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED. Accordingly, the following documents may not be filed under seal:
Document or Portion of Evidence Offered in Support Order
Document Sought to be of Sealing
Sealed
Plaintiffs' Motion to None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
Permit Contemporaneous by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Testimony From A Services, Ltd., which has not
Remote Location Under filed a supporting declaration as
Rule 43(a): required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
• 4:19-5:8
• Footnotes 6, 7, 9, 11
Exhibit 5: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 6: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 7: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 8: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 9: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 10: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 11: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 12: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Exhibit 13: Entire None — Designated Confidential DENIED.
document by Defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., which has not
filed a supporting declaration as
required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
The Order terminates Docket Number 496.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
