Bouncing Bear Botanicals, Inc. et al v. KTW Enterprises, Ltd. et al

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 168 Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Designation Under Protective Order. See order for deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 12/7/2012. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BOUNCING BEAR BOTANICALS, Inc.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KTW ENTERPRISES, Ltd., et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-4138-RDR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants KTW Enterprises and Ryan Scott designated certain information produced
during discovery as “confidential” or “attorneys’ eyes only” pursuant to the protective order
(Doc. 81) filed in this case. Consistent with provisions of the protective order, plaintiffs
moved for leave to file the information under seal as part of their motion for default
judgment. Judge Vratil denied plaintiffs’ motion, finding that plaintiffs had not made a
sufficient showing for filing the documents under seal. (Doc. 167).
The protective order also provides that any party has the right to have the court
determine whether information disclosed during discovery has properly been designated as
“confidential,” “trade secret,” or “attorneys’ eyes only.” (Doc. 81 at p. 2). This matter is
before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to lift defendants’ designation of certain information
as “confidential” or “attorneys’ eyes only” but to do so with redactions. (Doc. 168). After

review of the proposed exhibits, suggested redactions, and arguments of counsel, the court
concludes that the motion should be GRANTED and the designations of “confidential” and
“attorneys’ eyes only” shall be lifted. The information (with plaintiffs’ redactions) does not
warrant protection from disclosure.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 168) is GRANTED,
consistent with the rulings herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall refile their motion for default
judgment against defendant Alex Dimov with the necessary exhibits by December 21, 2012
or, alternatively show cause in writing to Judge Richard D. Rogers by December 21, 2012
why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute the action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1
Failure to timely file the motion for default judgment or show cause as ordered herein
may result in dismissal of the case without further notice to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 7th day of December 2012.
S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

1

This case was reassigned from Judge Vratil to Judge Rogers on November 2, 2012.
(Doc. 180).
-2-