The Mitchell Law Group v. OCC Venture LLC et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS. Should defendants wish Exhibits G, H, and/or I to become part of the record, defendants are directed to electronically fi le such exhibits in the public record no later than May 26, 2010. The Clerk is directed to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) with respect to the lodged originals and copies of Exhibits G, H, and I. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 20, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants attached to a declaration filed in support of the instant motion a copy of an e-mail sent to them by counsel for plaintiffs in which plaintiffs set forth their position with respect to the motion.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, Plaintiff, v. OCC VENTURE LLC, Defendant /

No. C-09-3466 MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS

United States District Court

Before the Court is defendants OCC Venture LLC and Shorenstein Realty Services, L.P.'s Administrative Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal, filed May 6, 2010. Plaintiffs have not filed a response.1 Having read and considered defendants' motion, the Court rules as follows. To the extent the motion seeks an order sealing Exhibit G to the Declaration of Paul F. Utrecht, the motion is hereby DENIED. The exhibit is a copy of a transcript of proceedings conducted in state court during which the parties placed on the record the terms of a settlement, and the transcript was not sealed by the state court. To the extent the motion seeks an order sealing Exhibits H and I to the Declaration of Paul F. Utrecht, the motion is hereby DENIED. The exhibits are unexecuted written

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

drafts of the parties' settlement agreement. As stated above, the essential terms of the parties' agreement were placed on the record in open court, and defendants have not pointed to any language in either draft that was not placed on the record and which is itself sealable within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 79-5.2 Accordingly, the administrative motion is hereby DENIED. Should defendants wish Exhibits G, H, and/or I to become part of the record, defendants are hereby DIRECTED to electronically file such exhibits in the public record no later than May 26, 2010. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) with respect to the lodged originals and copies of Exhibits G, H, and I. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

Although not relevant to resolution of the instant administrative motion, the Court notes that defendants do not cite to either Exhibits H or I in their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their pending motion for summary judgment, and, consequently, the relevance of the contents of the drafts is not apparent. 2

2