G.D. v. RILEY, 2:05-CV-980. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120605a87
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER NORAH McCANN KING, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal an exhibit submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 214, is GRANTED . 1 Plaintiffs shall submit to the Clerk, for filing under seal, an unredacted version of Exhibit 25. Defendant has filed a motion for leave to file his entire motion for summary judgment, as well as all supporting exhibits, under seal. Doc. No. 212. Although the issues presented by this case are likely to
Summary: ORDER NORAH McCANN KING, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal an exhibit submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 214, is GRANTED . 1 Plaintiffs shall submit to the Clerk, for filing under seal, an unredacted version of Exhibit 25. Defendant has filed a motion for leave to file his entire motion for summary judgment, as well as all supporting exhibits, under seal. Doc. No. 212. Although the issues presented by this case are likely to r..
More
ORDER
NORAH McCANN KING, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal an exhibit submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 214, is GRANTED.1 Plaintiffs shall submit to the Clerk, for filing under seal, an unredacted version of Exhibit 25.
Defendant has filed a motion for leave to file his entire motion for summary judgment, as well as all supporting exhibits, under seal. Doc. No. 212. Although the issues presented by this case are likely to require some filings under seal, defendant has not explained why his entire motion and all supporting exhibits must be protected from public view. See generally Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). Defendant's motion, Doc. No. 212, is therefore DENIED. This denial is without prejudice, however, to renewal upon specification of the particular documents, or portions of documents, that are appropriately filed under seal.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that a redacted version of the exhibit has been filed on the public record.
Source: Leagle
