Opinion
21 Civ. 07740 (JPC)(RWL)
11-15-2022
COVET & MANE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INVISIBLE BEAD EXTENSIONS, LLC, Defendants.
BARTON LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Covet & Mane, LLC.
BARTON LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff Covet & Mane, LLC.
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pursuant to Rule B of the Rules for Redactions and Filing Under Seal in Appendix A of the Individual Practices in Civil Cases of Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge, as of September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Covet & Mane, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “C&M”) hereby moves to file portions of both “Plaintiff Covet & Mane's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Its Motion to Amend Its Complaint” and the “Reply Declaration of Laura-Michelle Horgan in Further Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to File an Amended Complaint” under seal.
The reason Plaintiff seeks to file documents under seal is that Defendant Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC (“Defendant” or “IBE”) has designated the documents cited therein as either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” pursuant to the So-Ordered Confidentiality Agreement, Filed on March 3, 2022, as ECF Doc. No. 48. Defendant has also designated the deposition of third-party witness, Cassadi Currier, and portions of deposition of McKenzie Turley as either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” pursuant to the So-Ordered Confidentiality Agreement.
Accordingly, due to the fact that documents to be filed by Plaintiff summarizes certain documents and portions of testimony from these depositions, Plaintiff hereby requests to file its brief and certain documents under seal. Plaintiff is hereby filing redacted copies of both the reply brief and declaration in tandem with this Motion to Seal and sending unredacted copies to Chambers.
The motion to seal is denied without prejudice for not following the procedures set forth in my Individual Rules For Redactions And Filing Under Seal (see Appendix thereto). Moreover, it seems apparent to the Court that several of the documents designated by Defendant as Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only do not qualify for sealing. Again, the Court refers the parties to my Rules.
SO ORDERED.