Viesti Associates, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., The

Filing 141

ORDER granting 138 Defendant's Motion for Partial Reconsideration With Regard to Pending Motions To Limit Public Access; granting 116 Motion To Restrict Access to Document Submitted by Plaintiff With Proposed Pretrial Order; 79 Motion To Restrict Public Access to Certain Documents Filed by Plaintiff in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Incorporating Authorities). The documents filed as docket numbers 70, 71, 72, 73, and 100 SHALL BE MAINTAINED under Level 1 restriction. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/6/12.(kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-01237-REB-DLW
VIESTI ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC, and
JOHN DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
WITH REGARD TO PENDING MOTIONS TO LIMIT PUBLIC ACCESS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration With
Regard to Pending Motions To Limit Public Access [#138]1 filed August 24, 2012. I
grant the motion to reconsider and grant the underlying substantive motions to restrict
public access to certain exhibits appended to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Although the bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited, the court is
empowered to revisit prior rulings in order to “prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of
the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Such
is the case here. Based on the arguments advanced and authorities cited by defendant
in its motions to restrict access, which arguments and authorities I adopt and
incorporate by reference, defendant has demonstrating compelling reasons why the
1

“[#138]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

charts appended to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be restricted. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2A. In particular, defendant has established with sufficient
particularity that it will suffer a competitive injury if unfettered access to these
confidential discovery materials is permitted.2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration With Regard to
Pending Motions To Limit Public Access [#138] filed August 24, 2012, is GRANTED;
2. That defendant’s Motion To Restrict Public Access to Certain Documents
Filed by Plaintiff in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Incorporating Authorities) [#79] filed June 15, 2012, is GRANTED;
3. That defendant’s Motion To Restrict Access to Document Submitted by
Plaintiff With Proposed Pretrial Order [#116] filed July 16, 2012, is GRANTED; and
4. That the documents filed as docket numbers 70, 71, 72, 73, and 100 SHALL
BE MAINTAINED under Level 1 restriction as defined by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2B.5.
Dated November 6, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to the motions invoke the potential difficulties of ruling on the
(now defunct) motion for summary judgment and or conducting the (now moribund) trial in light of
restrictions on access to the documents. Obviously, in light of the parties’ settlement, these
considerations no longer bear weight in the analysis of the motions to restrict access.

2