Triad Packaging, Inc. et al v. SupplyONE, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER denying without prejudice 66 Motion to Seal, 67 Motion to Seal, 69 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/5/2011. (cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-005-RLV-DCK
TRIAD PACKAGING, INC. and LOUIS
WETMORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPPLYONE, INC.,

ORDER

Defendant,
v.
DURHAM BOX COMPANY, INC.,
Third Party Defendant.

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Seal Or Restrict
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs’ Claims And Memorandum In
Support Thereof” (Document No. 66); “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Seal Or Restrict Memorandum In
Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment As To Defendant’s Counterclaims And
Certain Exhibits” (Document No. 67); and “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Enlargement Of Page Limit
For Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’
Claims (LR7.1(d))” (Document No. 69) filed May 4, 2011. This matter has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions and the record, the undersigned will deny
the motions, without prejudice to re-file.

Plaintiff’s pending motions do not indicate that the requirement of consultation has been
met pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B). In fact, “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Enlargement Of Page
Limit...” states that “Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to request consent of opposing
counsel” without any further explanation.

(Document No. 69, p.2).

The requirement of

consultation is not optional.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Seal Or Restrict
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs’ Claims And Memorandum In
Support Thereof” (Document No. 66); “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Seal Or Restrict Memorandum In
Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment As To Defendant’s Counterclaims And
Certain Exhibits” (Document No. 67); and “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Enlargement Of Page Limit
For Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’
Claims (LR7.1(d))” (Document No. 69) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Signed: May 5, 2011