Haley et al v. Merial, Limited et al

Filing 102

ORDER temporarily granting in part and denying in part 100 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall forthwith restrict access to Exhibit A of document #97 to counsel of record. Within 10 days of this date, the defendants shall respond to plaintiffs' challenge of the confidential nature of the documents and show cause why the restriction should not be lifted. Signed by David A. Sanders on 8/26/10. (ncb, USDC)

Haley et al v. Merial, Limited et al

Doc. 102

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION NEAL HALEY, ET AL. VS. MERIAL, LIMITED, ET AL. ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to seal documents and to challenge protective order (# 100). The plaintiffs have apparently inadvertently filed documents that were produced by defendants in discovery and had been stamped "confidential" pursuant to the protective order entered in this case on April 20, 2010. The plaintiffs seek an order of the court sealing the documents pending a determination by the court regarding the "confidential" nature of the documents. Because the nature of this document has yet to be established, entry of an order sealing it would be premature. Nevertheless, the court believes that under the circumstances, restricting access to the document will serve as a sufficient remedy until such time as the nature of the document can be determined by the court. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. That the plaintiffs' motion to seal documents and challenge protective order is granted in part and denied in part. 2. That clerk of this court shall forthwith RESTRICT ACCESS to Exhibit A to Document # 97 to counsel of record for this case, and the document shall remain filed under restricted access until further order of the court. 3. That within ten (10) days of this date, defendants shall file a response to plaintiffs' 1 CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09CV94-WAP-DAS

Dockets.Justia.com

challenge of the confidential nature of the documents and show cause, if any, why the court should not lift the above restriction on the documents. SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of August, 2010.

/s/ David A. Sanders UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2