Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC

Filing 136

ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 112 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PHILLIP RACIES, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 112 QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Phillip Racies’ motion to file under seal his motion to 14 strike the expert reports of Drs. Alexander, Schwartz, and Kurzer as well as an associated exhibit. 15 Dkt. No. 112. No response to the motion to seal was filed, and the time to do so has passed. 16 Plaintiff seeks to redact a portion of page 7 of his motion to strike as well as Exhibit C to 17 the declaration of Patricia N. Syverson filed in support thereof because they contain references to 18 documents that Defendant has designated as “Confidential” under the protective order. See Dkt. 19 No. 112-1 ¶ 3. Designating party and Defendant Quincy Biosciences, LLC did not file a 20 declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, as required in this situation under the Local 21 Rules. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1) (“Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File 22 Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) 23 establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”). Accordingly, the motion to seal is 24 DENIED. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/22/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?