Muftic v. Prism Technologies LLC

Filing 36

ORDER - The defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibit in Support of Prism's Motion for Entry of Protective Order 25 is granted to the extent the Clerk of Court shall amend the entry for Exhibit 1 of the defendant's Index of Evidence 28 an d change the designation from SEALED to RESTRICTED pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. The plaintiff's Motion to Remove the Plaintiff's Complaint from the Open Docket and File Under Seal 30 is granted to the extent the Clerk o f Court shall change the designation to RESTRICTED and place the Complaint (Filing No. 1) under restricted access pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. The Clerk of Court shall amend the entry for the defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims (Filing No. 14) and change the designation from SEALED to RESTRICTED pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (KBJ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA SEAD MUFTIC, Plaintiff, vs. PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8:09CV355 ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibit in Support of Prism's Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Filing No. 25) and the plaintiff's Motion to Remove the Plaintiff's Complaint from the Open Docket and File Under Seal (Filing No. 30). No response was filed to either motion. The parties seek leave to file certain documents under access restricted to court staff and counsel of record. With the exception of the plaintiff's complaint, the relevant documents, including the defendant's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims (Filing No. 14), were filed under seal with access restricted to court staff and the filing party. The defendant seeks to have the relevant documents filed with restricted access because such documents contain confidential and sensitive information related to patents, trade secrets, and a confidential agreement between the parties. The plaintiff disagrees with the defendant about the need for restricting access to the complaint, but seeks to restrict access to the complaint from the public to temporarily resolve the parties' dispute as to this issue. The parties do no seek to restrict the parties' access to the documents. Under the circumstances, the court finds the unopposed motions should be granted as good cause exists for filing the relevant documents under restricted access. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED: 1. The defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibit in Support of Prism's Motion for Entry

of Protective Order (Filing No. 25) is granted to the extent the Clerk of Court shall amend the entry for Exhibit 1 of the defendant's Index of Evidence (Filing No. 28) and change the

designation from SEALED to RESTRICTED pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. 2. The plaintiff's Motion to Remove the Plaintiff's Complaint from the Open

Docket and File Under Seal (Filing No. 30) is granted to the extent the Clerk of Court shall change the designation to RESTRICTED and place the Complaint (Filing No. 1) under restricted access pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. 3. The Clerk of Court shall amend the entry for the defendant's Answer to

Complaint and Counterclaims (Filing No. 14) and change the designation from SEALED to RESTRICTED pursuant to NECivR 5.0.3 and court procedures. DATED this 4th day of May, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge

2