King v. Hausfeld et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge 2/15/2013 Denying as Moot 5 Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Temporarily Seal Complaint. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JON T. KING, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court No. C-13-0237 EMC MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD, et al., 12 Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL COMPLAINT AS MOOT (Docket No. 5) 13 14 15 On January 18, 2013, Defendants filed an ex parte motion to temporarily seal the complaint 16 in this case, alleging that the complaint contained confidential information about Defendants’ 17 clients, the firm’s finances, and litigation strategies in unrelated cases. Docket No. 5. The Court 18 ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to reach stipulations as to which parts of the 19 complaint, if any, should be redacted in the publicly available version of the document. Docket No. 20 18. 21 On February 13, Defendants filed a response to this Court’s order, indicating that Plaintiff 22 had disseminated the complaint, that as a result the complaint was now available on the internet, and 23 that the request to seal the complaint was now moot. Docket No. 21. It appears that part, if not all, 24 of Plaintiff’s dissemination of the complaint occurred before Defendants filed their application to 25 seal. Docket No. 5 at 3 n.2. Plaintiff filed a response on February 14, 2013. Docket No. 22. 26 Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s response as procedurally improper and containing incorrect or 27 misleading factual representations. Plaintiff does not, however, dispute that Defendant’s request to 28 seal the complaint is now moot. 1 As the parties appear to agree that Defendant’s request to seal the complaint is now moot, 2 Defendants’ ex parte application to seal the complaint is DENIED. This Court makes no findings as 3 to the timing or propriety of any actions on the part of Plaintiff in disseminating the complaint. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 5. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: February 15, 2013 9 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?