YORMAK v. YORMAK, 2:14-cv-33-FtM-29CM. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150422988
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Steven Yormak's Motion to Partially Seal Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 173), filed on April 9, 2015. Plaintiff seeks leave to file an unredacted version of Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, under seal, because the filings contain Defendants' confidential, sensitive financial information protected by the parties' Confidentiality Order. Doc. 173;
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Steven Yormak's Motion to Partially Seal Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 173), filed on April 9, 2015. Plaintiff seeks leave to file an unredacted version of Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, under seal, because the filings contain Defendants' confidential, sensitive financial information protected by the parties' Confidentiality Order. Doc. 173; ..
More
ORDER
CAROL MIRANDO, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Steven Yormak's Motion to Partially Seal Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 173), filed on April 9, 2015. Plaintiff seeks leave to file an unredacted version of Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, under seal, because the filings contain Defendants' confidential, sensitive financial information protected by the parties' Confidentiality Order. Doc. 173; Doc. 91 at ¶ 8. Plaintiff has provided the Court with both redacted and unredacted versions of the motion he seeks leave to file.
The Motion to Partially Seal does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), as it fails to contain a certification that Plaintiff met and conferred with opposing counsel in an effort to resolve the issues raised prior to filing the motion. The Court informed Plaintiff of this requirement on January 8, 2015. Doc. 102. Thus, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice because it fails to include a Local Rule 3.01(g) certification. The motion may be refiled in accordance with the Local Rules.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motions to Partially Seal (Docs. 173) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
