Folkens v. Wyland, et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/28/15. Plaintiff's sealing motion is not considered, and the documents emailed to chambers for in camera consideration are treated as having been returned to Plaintiff. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PIETER AREND FOLKENS, dba A
HIGHER PORPOISE DESIGN GROUP,

No. 2:14-cv-02197-GEB-CKD

8
Plaintiff,
9

ORDER
v.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WYLAND (NFN), aka ROBERT
THOMAS WYLAND, an individual;
WYLAND WORLDWIDE, LLC, a
California Corporation;
WYLAND GALLERIES, INC, a
California Corporation;
SIGNATURE GALLERY GROUP,
INC., a Nevada Corporation,
dba WYLAND GALLERIES;
and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive;

17

Defendants.

18
19

On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff submitted for in camera

20

consideration multiple documents concerning a “Motion to File

21

Document

22

Whether Defendants Will Seek a Protective Order.”

23

Notice of Request to Seal was filed on the public docket as

24

generally required by Local Rule 141, nor did Plaintiff show why

25

it should be excused from complying with that requirement. See

26

E.D.

27

investigations in which sealing is sought, the ‘Notice of Request

28

to Seal Documents’ shall be filed . . . .”).

Under

Cal.

R.

Seal,

to

141(b)

Unseal

(“Except

1

Document[,]

in

and

to

Determine

However, no

pre-indictment

criminal

1

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

sealing

motion

is

not

2

considered, and the documents emailed to chambers for in camera

3

consideration are treated as having been returned to Plaintiff.

4

Cf. E.D. Cal. R. 141(e)(1) (“If a [sealing r]equest is denied in

5

full or in part, the Clerk will return to the submitting party

6

the documents for which sealing has been denied.”).

7

Dated:

October 28, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2