LOPAREX, LLC v. MPI RELEASE, LLC et al

Filing 181

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL: Before the Court are two motions to file under seal. Regarding Plaintiff's motion to seal Docket Nos. 172 and 173 [Docket No. 174], there appears to be no basis for wholesale sealing of these briefs. Plaintiff's 174 motion is therefore denied. Any party interested in sealing limited portions of these filings shall have fourteen days in which to provide supplemental briefing explaining in specific detail what good cause purportedly exists for doing so. Re garding the Defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits and their reply brief in support of their motion for sanctions [Docket No. 168], the motion is granted to the extent that Exhibit A, which clearly contains proprietary information, [Docket No. 163] shall remain under seal. Based upon the briefing, however, good cause has not been established to keep Exhibits V, W,and J [Docket Nos. 163, 165] or the reply brief [Docket No. 166] under seal. In fact, the MPI Defendants assert that they & quot;do not agree that the information contained in these documents is confidential." [Docket No. 168 at 3.] Therefore, any party interested in sealing Exhibits V, W,or J or the reply brief shall have fourteen days to establish good cause why they should be sealed or which specific portions should be redacted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker (SWM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION LOPAREX, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MPI RELEASE, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:09-cv-1411-JMS-TAB

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL Before the Court are two motions to file under seal. Regarding Plaintiff's motion to seal Docket Nos. 172 and 173 [Docket No. 174], there appears to be no basis for wholesale sealing of these briefs. Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied. Any party interested in sealing limited portions of these filings shall have fourteen days in which to provide supplemental briefing explaining in specific detail what good cause purportedly exists for doing so. Regarding the Defendants' motion to seal certain exhibits and their reply brief in support of their motion for sanctions [Docket No. 168], the motion is granted to the extent that Exhibit A, which clearly contains proprietary information, [Docket No. 163] shall remain under seal. Based upon the briefing, however, good cause has not been established to keep Exhibits V, W, and J [Docket Nos. 163, 165] or the reply brief [Docket No. 166] under seal. In fact, the MPI Defendants assert that they "do not agree that the information contained in these documents is confidential." [Docket No. 168 at 3.] Therefore, any party interested in sealing Exhibits V, W, or J or the reply brief shall have fourteen days to establish good cause why they should be sealed or which specific portions should be redacted. Dated: 07/20/2010
_______________________________ Tim A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Copies to: Lisa A. Baiocchi JACKSON LEWIS LLP [e-mail] Jeffrey B. Halbert STEWART & IRWIN P.C. [e-mail] Donald E. Knebel BARNES & THORNBURG LLP [e-mail] Charles W. Pautsch JACKSON LEWIS LLP [e-mail] Jennifer Lynn Schuster BARNES & THORNBURG LLP [e-mail] Aaron M. Staser BARNES & THORNBURG LLP [e-mail] Lynn C. Tyler BARNES & THORNBURG [e-mail] Richard P. Winegardner BARNES & THORNBURG LLP [e-mail]