McGibney et al v. Retzlaff

Filing 40

Order denying 36 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 8/22/2014.(blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al., Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 10 THOMAS RETZLAFF, et al., [Re: ECF 36] Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Before the Court is the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by plaintiffs James 14 McGibney and ViaView, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on August 15, 2014. (Admin. Mot., ECF 15 36) Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibit 25 filed in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant 16 Thomas Retzlaff’s several motions to dismiss. (Id. at 1) It appears that Plaintiffs seek to keep this 17 exhibit sealed not only from the public, but from the other parties as well. The Court finds that it 18 would be a violation of due process for the Court to consider evidence against another party 19 without affording that party an opportunity to review and rebut the evidence. As such, Plaintiffs’ 20 sealing request is DENIED. 21 Plaintiffs may withdraw their sealing request and choose not to rely on the exhibit sought 22 to be sealed in opposing Defendant Retzlaff’s motions. The subject exhibit will not be considered 23 by the Court unless Plaintiffs file an unredacted, unsealed version within seven (7) days of the 24 date of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: August 22, 2014 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 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?