Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 79) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion to file under seal. Docket No. 79. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 64, 68. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 71. Plaintiff contended that Defendant's redactions did not meet the relevant sealing standards and that the order prejudiced Plaintiff. See id. at 7-20. D
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 79) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion to file under seal. Docket No. 79. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 64, 68. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 71. Plaintiff contended that Defendant's redactions did not meet the relevant sealing standards and that the order prejudiced Plaintiff. See id. at 7-20. De..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 79)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion to file under seal. Docket No. 79. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 64, 68. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 71. Plaintiff contended that Defendant's redactions did not meet the relevant sealing standards and that the order prejudiced Plaintiff. See id. at 7-20. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's motion on August 29, 2016. Docket No. 74. Because Defendant was willing to revise its redactions, the Court ordered Defendant to file a renewed motion for leave to file under seal. Docket No. 76. Defendant then filed a renewed motion, Docket No. 77, which the Court denied for failure to include a memorandum of points and authorities. Docket No. 78. The Court ordered Defendant to file a renewed motion for leave to file under seal. Id. Defendant then filed the motion currently before the Court. Docket No. 79.
The current issue before the Court is whether Defendant can demonstrate that its newly proposed redactions meet the relevant legal standards. The result of Defendant's renewed motion, which proposes different redactions, is that Defendant's previous redactions are no longer at issue. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether Plaintiff's arguments regarding the prior redactions are correct. Defendant's renewed motion, however, devotes more space to disputing Plaintiff's assertions about the previous redactions than it does to explaining how the newly proposed redactions meet the sealing standards. Docket No. 79 at 5-6. The Court cannot make a reasoned decision based on Defendant's limited analysis.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's renewed motion for leave to file under seal, Docket No. 79, without prejudice. Defendant shall filed a renewed motion that discusses only whether Defendant's new redactions meet the sealing standards no later than October 11, 2016. A response shall be filed no later than October 13, 2016. Any reply shall be filed no later than October 17, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
