Marquis Aurbach Coffing v. Dorfman et al
Filing
57
ORDER that 46 Motion to Seal is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING, P.C.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
TERRY DORFMAN, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:15-cv-00701-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 46)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal exhibit 1 to its motion for leave to file
17 second amended complaint. Docket No. 46. In the motion, Plaintiff represents that the exhibit
18 summarizes and quotes documents that two non-parties to the case had designated confidential pursuant
19 to a stipulated protective order in another case, but that Plaintiff had not had the time to confer with the
20 non-parties regarding the applicable sealing standards. Id. at 2-3. The Court ordered Plaintiff to confer
21 with the non-parties and, to the extent the parties do not believe sealing the exhibit is necessary, the
22 Court ordered Plaintiff to so inform the Court and to file the subject document on the public docket no
23 later than February 4, 2016. Docket No. 47 at 1-2.
24 . . . .
25 . . . .
26 . . . .
27 . . . .
28 . . . .
1
On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplement to its motion to seal, informing the Court that,
2 after conferring with the non-parties, it no longer seeks to seal the exhibit. See Docket No. 50. On the
3 same date, Plaintiff filed the exhibit on the public docket. Docket No. 51.
4
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Docket No. 46, is hereby DENIED as moot.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: February 8, 2016.
7
8
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?