Bean v. McDougal Littell et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 107 Joint Stipulated Motion to Seal Exhibits to PlaintiffsResponses to Defendants Motions for Partial Summary Judgment FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall strike the lodged proposed sealed exhibits at Doc. # 108, Doc. # 109, Doc. # 110, and Doc. # 111. See Order for Further Details. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/24/09.(MAP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT) PUBLISHING COMPANY, AND R.R.) DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) TOM BEAN,

No. CV 07-8063-PCT-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Joint Stipulated Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 107). Based upon Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that documents that contain revenues, expenses, profits, or other future financial projections information do not constitute good cause justifying an order from this Court sealing the proposed exhibits. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulated Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 107) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall strike the lodged proposed sealed exhibits at Doc. # 108, Doc. # 109, Doc. # 110, and Doc. # 111.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 10 days from the date of this Order to file a joint stipulation of facts that this Court may rely upon in resolving the pending motions for summary judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties cannot agree upon a joint stipulation of facts that this Court may rely upon in resolving the pending motions for summary judgment, then the party responsible for producing the proposed sealed exhibits shall have an additional 10 days to redact the information it considers to be confidential in a manner that satisfies Plaintiff­the party requesting and receiving the proposed sealed exhibits. If the parties agree upon a redacted version of the proposed sealed exhibits, Plaintiff shall have 5 days to filed the redacted version of the proposed sealed exhibits UNSEALED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties cannot agree upon a joint stipulation of facts and if the parties cannot agree upon a redacted copy of the proposed sealed exhibits, then Plaintiff shall have 5 days to file the proposed sealed exhibits UNSEALED. DATED this 24th day of September, 2009.

-2-