SANTIAGO v. LAFFERTY, 13-cv-12172-IT (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20150123c08
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge. The court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiff's Assented-to Motion to Modify Protective Order [#95]. With regard to paragraph seven of the protective order, the parties are reminded that nothing in the protective order limits the court's power to make orders concerning the disclosure or impoundment of documents produced in discovery or at trial. 1 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, no materials may be filed under seal unless the party seeking impoundment firs
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge. The court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiff's Assented-to Motion to Modify Protective Order [#95]. With regard to paragraph seven of the protective order, the parties are reminded that nothing in the protective order limits the court's power to make orders concerning the disclosure or impoundment of documents produced in discovery or at trial. 1 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, no materials may be filed under seal unless the party seeking impoundment first..
More
ORDER
INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.
The court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiff's Assented-to Motion to Modify Protective Order [#95]. With regard to paragraph seven of the protective order, the parties are reminded that nothing in the protective order limits the court's power to make orders concerning the disclosure or impoundment of documents produced in discovery or at trial.1 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, no materials may be filed under seal unless the party seeking impoundment first files a motion to seal with the court and makes a particularized showing of the need for impoundment. Only upon the allowance of such a motion shall any party file such materials under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphasizing that "`only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records' that come within the scope" of the public's "presumptive" right of access to judicial documents (quoting In re Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002))).
Source: Leagle
