McDonald v. CP Opco, LLC, 17-cv-04915-HSG. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190325867
Visitors: 28
Filed: Mar. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 88 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David McDonald's administrative motion to file under seal portions of his opposition to Insperity PEO Services, L.P.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 88. Plaintiff originally asserted that the portions of the opposition he wished to seal "contain information received through third-party discovery and designate
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 88 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David McDonald's administrative motion to file under seal portions of his opposition to Insperity PEO Services, L.P.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 88. Plaintiff originally asserted that the portions of the opposition he wished to seal "contain information received through third-party discovery and designated..
More
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 88
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David McDonald's administrative motion to file under seal portions of his opposition to Insperity PEO Services, L.P.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 88. Plaintiff originally asserted that the portions of the opposition he wished to seal "contain information received through third-party discovery and designated as confidential by non-party Bright Event Rentals, LLC." See id. at 1. However, Bright Event Rentals, LLC later informed Plaintiff that it did "not intend to file a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable." See Dkt. No. 91 at 1. Consequently, Plaintiff filed an unredacted version of his opposition, see Dkt. No. 92, and requested that the Court deny as moot his administrative motion to file under seal, see Dkt. No. 91 at 1.
Based on Plaintiff's representations and his filing of an unredacted version of his opposition on the public docket, the Court DENIES as moot the administrative motion to file under seal. This order terminates Dkt. No. 88.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
