BBJ, Inc. et al v. MillerCoors, LLC et al

Filing 173

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting, with certain limitations, 172 Motion for Protective Order. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BBJ, INC. and WESTON O. GRAVES, Plaintiffs, v. MILLERCOORS, LLC, COORS BREWING COMPANY, MILLER BREWING COMPANY, and RENEE CUSACK, Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * Civil Action No. 12-cv-11305-IT ORDER November 13, 2015 TALWANI, D.J. Defendants’ Assented to Motion for Entry of Protective Order [#172] is ALLOWED with the following limitation. Any party seeking to file a document under seal must file a motion with the court and demonstrate good cause for the impoundment. References to the document’s designation as “confidential” pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order or to an agreement between the parties concerning redaction, without more, do not suffice to establish good cause. Specifically, the party seeking impoundment must make “‘a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not . . . conclusory statements’” as to why the document should be sealed. United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 60 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 412 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (“A finding of good cause must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not on conclusory statements.” (citation omitted)). IT IS SO ORDERED. November 13, 2015 /s/ Indira Talwani United States District Judge 2

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?