ORDER RE: EIGHTH, NINTH AND TENTH SEALING MOTIONS [Re: ECF Nos. 215, 222, 229]

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

On July 27, 2015, the court entered an order resolving seven sealing motions that were filed at ECF Nos. 182, 184, 193, 200, 206, 212, and 214. (See Order re Seven Administrative Motions to Seal, ECF No. 218.) In that order, the court required the sealing of (1) monetary terms set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (2) confidential settlement terms related to programmatic commitments set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (3) confidential commitments by the respective Parties in the Confidential Settlement Agreement that are not germane to Friedman's fee dispute; (4) confidential "Lawsuit Information" as defined in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; and (5) confidential settlement communications and confidential settlement negotiations conducted under Local ADR Rule 7-5. (Id. at 2.) To that end, the court ordered the parties to file the proposed redacted versions of documents that were attached to the Declaration of Jan E. Eakins in support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal dated June 30, 2015. (Id.)

There was, however, an eighth sealing motion filed by Mr. Friedman at ECF No. 215 which the court's Order re Seven Administrative Motions to Seal did not cover. By that eighth sealing motion, Mr. Friedman sought leave "to file a reply to Kaiser's Opposition re Sealing Issues under a temporary seal." (Motion, ECF No. 215 at 1.) So, on July 29, 2015, because no proposed order was filed along with the eighth sealing motion, the court stamped the motion as "granted" and filed the stamped motion as an order. (7/29/2015 Order, ECF No. 221.) The court meant this order to require Mr. Friedman to redact that same kinds of information in his reply that it had ordered sealed in the other documents. It did not intend its order to "deny a permanent seal on all documents," as Mr. Friedman now suggests.

Presumably because the court's 7/29/2015 Order did not specify which portions of Mr. Friedman's reply were sealed, later on June 29, 2015, Kaiser filed a ninth sealing motion that included a proposed redacted version of Mr. Friedman's reply. (Motion, ECF No. 222.) As with the other documents, the proposed redactions covered (1) monetary terms set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (2) confidential settlement terms related to programmatic commitments set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (3) confidential commitments by the respective Parties in the Confidential Settlement Agreement that are not germane to Friedman's fee dispute; (4) confidential "Lawsuit Information" as defined in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; and (5) confidential settlement communications and confidential settlement negotiations conducted under Local ADR Rule 7-5. (Id. at 2.)

On August 3, 2015, Mr. Friedman filed the tenth sealing motion, in which he seeks leave to file under seal an opposition to the ninth sealing motion filed by Kaiser. (Motion, ECF No. 229.)

The court grants the ninth sealing motion (ECF No. 222) and orders that Kaiser's proposed redacted version of Mr. Friedman's reply, which is attached to the Declaration of Jan E. Eakins in support of Defendants' Administrative Motion dated July 29, 2015, may be filed, and that the unredacted version of the same document shall remain sealed.

The court also grants the tenth sealing motion (ECF No. 229), but this is not be construed to "deny a permanent seal on all documents." Mr. Friedman's opposition to the tenth sealing motion shall be sealed to the same extent that all of the other documents have been sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.