Folkens v. Wyland (Nfn)

Full title: PIETER AREND FOLKENS, dba A HIGHER PORPOISE DESIGN GROUP, Plaintiff, v…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 29, 2015

2:14-cv-02197-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015)

Opinion

PIETER AREND FOLKENS, dba A HIGHER PORPOISE DESIGN GROUP, Plaintiff, v. WYLAND (NFN), aka ROBERT THOMAS WYLAND, an individual; WYLAND WORLDWIDE, LLC, a California Corporation; WYLAND GALLERIES, INC, a California Corporation; SIGNATURE GALLERY GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation, dba WYLAND GALLERIES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-02197-GEB-CKD United States District Court, E.D. California. October 29, 2015

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

         On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff submitted for in camera consideration multiple documents concerning a "Motion to File Document Under Seal, to Unseal Document[, ] and to Determine Whether Defendants Will Seek a Protective Order." However, no Notice of Request to Seal was filed on the public docket as generally required by Local Rule 141, nor did Plaintiff show why it should be excused from complying with that requirement. See E.D. Cal. R. 141(b) ("Except in pre-indictment criminal investigations in which sealing is sought, the Notice of Request to Seal Documents' shall be filed....").

         Therefore, Plaintiff's sealing motion is not considered, and the documents emailed to chambers for in camera consideration are treated as having been returned to Plaintiff. Cf. E.D. Cal. R. 141(e)(1) ("If a [sealing r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been denied.").