Porters Building Centers, Inc. v. Sprint Lumber, Inc. et al

Filing 239

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REDACT TRANSCRIPT, 237 .Re: 225 , 226 Electronic Transcript. Signed on 3/22/17 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes Mitra, Renea)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION PORTERS BUILDING CENTERS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SPRINT LUMBER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. 16-06055-CV-SJ-ODS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REDACT TRANSCRIPT Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact Portions of Hearing Transcripts Made Available to the Public. Doc. #237. Plaintiff requests several items be redacted from the preliminary injunction hearing transcript with regard to the testimonies of Alex Porter and Kent Porter. Docs. #225-26. Defendants have not filed any objection to Plaintiff’s request, and the time for doing so has passed. After considering the motion, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion. The Court Reporter is directed to redact the following from Document #225: 31:5 (amount of money), and 43:11 (amount of money). The Court Reporter is directed to redact the following from Document #226: 27:2-4 (amounts of money), 27:7-8 (the amount of gross margin and the amount of money), 27:13 (amount of money), 28:1 (amount of money), 28:4 (amount of money), 28:11 (amount of money), and 42:6 (amount of money). Those items shall be redacted in the manner typically utilized for redactions and shall be redacted from any publicly-available version of the trial transcript. The original, unredacted trial transcript shall remain under seal on ECF. Plaintiff’s other redaction requests are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: March 22, 2017 /s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?