Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Benton v. Clarity Services, Inc., 16-cv-06583-MMC. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180130c35 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFERRED PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT Re: Dkt. No. 64 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed January 10, 2018, the court granted in part and deferred ruling in part on defendant Clarity Services, Inc.'s ("Clarity") "Administrative Motion to Seal," and, with respect to the deferred portion thereof, afforded Clarity leave to file supplemental declaration(s). On January 24, 2018, Clarity filed a Response to t
More

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFERRED PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT

Re: Dkt. No. 64

By order filed January 10, 2018, the court granted in part and deferred ruling in part on defendant Clarity Services, Inc.'s ("Clarity") "Administrative Motion to Seal," and, with respect to the deferred portion thereof, afforded Clarity leave to file supplemental declaration(s).

On January 24, 2018, Clarity filed a Response to the Court's Order, in which it "withdraws its request to seal" the information as to which the Court had deferred ruling. (See Response at 1:10-11.)

Accordingly, (1) to the extent Clarity initially sought an order sealing that additional information, Clarity's administrative motion is hereby DENIED as moot; and (2) Clarity is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than January 31, 2018, its redacted exhibits as attachments to a separate document titled "Redacted Exhibits H, J, K, T, U, V to the Declaration of Sean Dunham in Support of Clarity Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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