From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Litepanels, Ltd. v. GVM Photographic Equip.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
Aug 15, 2024
Civil Action 23-3599 (KMW-MJS) (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 23-3599 (KMW-MJS)

08-15-2024

LITEPANELS, LTD., VIDENDUM PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. GVM PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT INC., Defendant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KAREN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court notes several issues regarding Plaintiffs' need to seal certain information present in Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 18) and the Opinion and Order issued by this Court on July 22, 2024 (ECF Nos. 19, 20).

WHEREAS, On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment under temporary seal (ECF No. 18); and

WHEREAS, Notice to Counsel was issued that same day, notifying Counsel of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2), requiring a consolidated motion to seal be filed within 14 days following the completed briefing of the materials sought to be sealed; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs did not request an extension and ultimately filed a Motion to Seal their Motion for Default Judgment on August 7, 2024; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(4), a redacted, publicly available version of all corresponding filings that were filed under seal should have been filed within 14 days of completion of tire briefing, and Plaintiffs did not provide these documents; and

WHEREAS, the Court cannot determine if the proposed redactions suggested by Plaintiffs' untimely Motion to Seal are in conformity with Local Civil Rule 5.3(c); and

THEREFORE, the Courtdirects Plaintiffs to provide a redacted version illustrating their proposed redactions of the “certain portions” of their Motion for Default Judgment as articulated in their Motion to Seal index; and

WHEREAS, on July 22,2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 19, 20); and

WHEREAS, the Court directed Plaintiffs in its Order to file a Motion to Seal in conformity with Local Civil Rule 5.3(c/3) and a copy of the Opinion with proposed redactions within fourteen (14) days of its issuance, the time for which has now passed; and

WHEREAS, the Court noted that failure to file such a motion could result in the Clerk of Court unsealing the Opinion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(10); and

WHEREAS, to date, Plaintills have not filed a Motion to Seal or a set of proposed redactions to the Opinion filed on July 22,2024.

IT IS HEREBY on this 15th day of August 2024, ORDERED that Plaintiffs file a redacted version their Memorandum Motion for Default Judgment that was filed under seal (ECF No. 18) illustrating their proposed redactions of the “certain portions” of their memorandum as articulated in their Motion to Seal index filed on August 7, 2024 (ECF No. 21); and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs file a Motion to Seal in compliance with Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) and include a copy of the Opinion issued on July 22, 2024, showing all proposed redactions for public filing; and it is further

ORDERED that if Plaintiffs do not require redactions to the Opinion issued on July 22, 2024, that Plaintiffs file a letter on the docket indicating that position; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs file all the materials requested by the Court in this Order on the docket within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Order.


Summaries of

Litepanels, Ltd. v. GVM Photographic Equip.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
Aug 15, 2024
Civil Action 23-3599 (KMW-MJS) (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2024)
Case details for

Litepanels, Ltd. v. GVM Photographic Equip.

Case Details

Full title:LITEPANELS, LTD., VIDENDUM PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. GVM…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

Date published: Aug 15, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 23-3599 (KMW-MJS) (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2024)