Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SUTOR v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., 2:12-cv-600-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20141029b86 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Intex Recreation Corp.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Seal ( Doc. #101 ) filed on October 27, 2014. In support of its Motion, Defendant indicates that three exhibits were inadvertently filed with its Motion for Protective Order. As Defendant explains, these exhibits need to be sealed in order to 1) "protect [Defendant's] interest in the confidentiality of the documents" and 2) "ensure [Defendant] has t
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Intex Recreation Corp.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Seal (Doc. #101) filed on October 27, 2014. In support of its Motion, Defendant indicates that three exhibits were inadvertently filed with its Motion for Protective Order. As Defendant explains, these exhibits need to be sealed in order to 1) "protect [Defendant's] interest in the confidentiality of the documents" and 2) "ensure [Defendant] has the opportunity to fully and persuasively present all materials that bear on the Motion to the Court." (Doc. #101 at 2). The Court agrees.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Motion to Seal (Doc. #101) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to SEAL exhibits C, D, and E attached to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. #100). 3. Defendant is ordered to file paper copies of these sealed exhibits with the Clerk of Court.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer