BIAX Corporation v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 367

MINUTE ORDER. Ricoh Defendants' 365 Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel is granted. Although BIAX opposes the requested relief, the Court will permit this reply, limited to no more than five pages, and due on or before 7/17/2012. Ricoh Defendants' 357 Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access, Plaintiff BIAX's 359 Motion to Restrict Access (unopposed), and Defendant HP's 362 Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access are granted. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/10/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03013-PAB-KLM
BIAX CORPORATION,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
BROTHER INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
Defendants,
and
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION, and
RICOH COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants/Counterclaimants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Ricoh Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Restrict Access [Docket No. 357; Filed July 5, 2012]; Plaintiff BIAX’s Motion to Restrict
Access (unopposed) [Docket No. 359; Filed July 5, 2012]; Defendant HP’s Unopposed
Motion to Restrict Access [Docket No. 362; Filed July 5, 2012]; and the Ricoh
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel (Dkt.
#330) [Docket No. 365; Filed July 9, 2012] (“Motion for Leave”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ricoh Defendants’ Motion for Leave [#365] is
GRANTED. Although BIAX opposes the requested relief, the Court will permit this reply,
limited to no more than five pages, and due on or before July 17, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Restrict [## 357, 359, 362] are
GRANTED. In accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C., the Motions were publicly posted
to allow for any objections to the sealing of the documents. No timely objections were filed.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, the Court finds that the presumption of public access
1

to Court files is outweighed by the parties’ interest in privacy, and the parties have shown
that a less restrictive alternative is not practicable. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the
following documents UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1:1 Defendant Ricoh’s Opposition
to BIAX’s Motion to Compel Discovery and accompanying Exhibits C, D, E, F, H, I, J, and
L located at Docket No. 355; and Plaintiff BIAX's Opposition to Ricoh’s Motion to Compel
Compliance by BIAX with the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 304) Regarding Interrogatory
Responses and accompanying Exhibits 1-2 and 9-14 located at Docket No. 360.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the
following documents UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 2:2 Defendant HP’s Response and
accompanying Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 located at Docket No. 361.
Dated: July 10, 2012

1

See

2

See

Level 1 limits access to the documents to the parties and the Court.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2B.5.
Level 2 limits access to the documents to the filing party and the Court.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2B.5.

2