Walker et al v. Segway, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER re: 16 Sealed Motion to Compel, 17 Sealed Addendum, 21 Sealed Opposition, 24 Sealed Reply, and 27 Sealed Order. Within 10 days of the date of this order, parties to file memo to show cause why these documents should not be unsealed. Notice of Compliance Deadline set for 5/2/2013. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Charles W. Walker and
Janette Walker
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-382-JD

Segway, Inc.

Procedural Order
“The common law presumes a right of public access to
judicial records.”
(1st Cir. 1998).

Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 9
Based on a review of the parties’ “Stipulated

Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order,” it is not
apparent why the motion to compel (document no. 16), the addendum
(document no. 17), the opposition (document no. 21), and the
reply (document no. 24) should remain sealed.

The order granting

the plaintiffs’ motion to compel was issued under seal only
because the motion papers were sealed.
Therefore, within ten days of the date of this order, the
parties shall file a memorandum to show cause why the motion,

opposition, reply, and order should not be unsealed, failing
which these documents will be unsealed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 22, 2013
cc:

Ronald E. Cook, Esquire
Ralph Suozzo, Esquire
Mark Venardi, Esquire

2