IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 10-md-02143-RS (JCS). (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160928c61
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2016
Summary: AMENDED 1 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 1948 JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . On September 21, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file certain material under seal. See Admin. Mot. (dkt. 1948). The only stated basis for sealing is that the material at issue was designated by Defendants as "Confidential" or "Confidential-Restricted" under the parties' stipulated protective order. See id. Civil Loca
Summary: AMENDED 1 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 1948 JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . On September 21, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file certain material under seal. See Admin. Mot. (dkt. 1948). The only stated basis for sealing is that the material at issue was designated by Defendants as "Confidential" or "Confidential-Restricted" under the parties' stipulated protective order. See id. Civil Local..
More
AMENDED1 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 1948
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.
On September 21, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file certain material under seal. See Admin. Mot. (dkt. 1948). The only stated basis for sealing is that the material at issue was designated by Defendants as "Confidential" or "Confidential-Restricted" under the parties' stipulated protective order. See id.
Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) provides that when a party moves to file under seal on the basis that another party has designated material as confidential, "the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable" within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). That time has expired and Defendants have not filed a responsive declaration. The administrative motion is therefore DENIED, and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the material at issue in the public record no earlier than October 3, 2016 and no later than October 7, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This Amended Order supersedes the previously filed Order (dkt. 1954) and corrects a clerical error regarding the dates for filing material in the public record. As reflected below, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are ordered to file the material at issue in October, not September.
Source: Leagle
