PAICE LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, MJG-12-499. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150611b63
Visitors: 29
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARVIN J. GARBIS , District Judge . The Court has before it Intervenor Toyota's Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 560], Intervenor Toyota's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule on Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 561]. The Court has received letters from the parties and finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary. The forthcoming hearing relates to the admissibility at trial of the Toyota settlement agreement and no
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARVIN J. GARBIS , District Judge . The Court has before it Intervenor Toyota's Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 560], Intervenor Toyota's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule on Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 561]. The Court has received letters from the parties and finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary. The forthcoming hearing relates to the admissibility at trial of the Toyota settlement agreement and not..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Intervenor Toyota's Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 560], Intervenor Toyota's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule on Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 561]. The Court has received letters from the parties and finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.
The forthcoming hearing relates to the admissibility at trial of the Toyota settlement agreement and not to whether Paice has, or has not, violated certain aspects of the agreement. Toyota has an interest in preserving the confidentiality of the agreement and, in that regard, would understandably prefer that the Court find the agreement inadmissible. Toyota will be permitted some participation1 in the hearing regarding admissibility.2 Toyota shall not be presenting arguments regarding admissibility. However, should the Court rule that the agreement is admissible, Toyota could then be heard regarding matters relating to preserving confidentiality of evidence that is admitted.
The Court finds no reason to provide Toyota the pre-hearing discovery.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. Intervenor Toyota's Motion to Modify The Confidentiality Order [Document 560] is DENIED.
2. Intervenor Toyota's Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule on Motion to Modify the Confidentiality Order [Document 561] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This shall include, at least, the presentation of witnesses.
2. Except for the sealed segment that will relate to the Paice-Abell relationship.
Source: Leagle
