ANDES INDUSTRIES v. CHENG SUN LAN, 2:14-cv-00400-APG-GWF. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160512b21
Visitors: 1
Filed: May 11, 2016
Latest Update: May 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's ("RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (#131), filed on May 9, 2016. RIPL requests leave to file the exhibits attached to its Motion to Enforce Lien (#130) under seal because its prior clients "do not waive any attorney-client or other privilege" and do not authorize RIPL to waive the privilege. Motion (#131), pg. 1, lns. 8-9. RIPL represents that in light of its prior client's representation
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's ("RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (#131), filed on May 9, 2016. RIPL requests leave to file the exhibits attached to its Motion to Enforce Lien (#130) under seal because its prior clients "do not waive any attorney-client or other privilege" and do not authorize RIPL to waive the privilege. Motion (#131), pg. 1, lns. 8-9. RIPL represents that in light of its prior client's representations..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's ("RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (#131), filed on May 9, 2016.
RIPL requests leave to file the exhibits attached to its Motion to Enforce Lien (#130) under seal because its prior clients "do not waive any attorney-client or other privilege" and do not authorize RIPL to waive the privilege. Motion (#131), pg. 1, lns. 8-9. RIPL represents that in light of its prior client's representations, it "has redacted unnecessary information from the supporting documents (Exhibits 1 through 8)." Id. at lns. 19-20. However, RIPL fails to detail what these documents are and that, as redacted, they contain confidential communications that should not be publicly disclosed. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ruttenberg IP Law's Motion to File Under Seal (#131) is denied without prejudice. RIPL is advised that if it decides to re-file its motion it should clarify (1) what information is contained in the documents it seeks to seal, and (2) why its redaction of "unnecessary information" does not obviate the need to seal the exhibits.
Source: Leagle
