From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

READY TRANSPORT, INC. v. AAR MANUFACTURING, INC.

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 29, 2008
2:06-cv-1053-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)

Opinion

2:06-cv-1053-GEB.

May 29, 2008


ORDER

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).


On May 22, 2008, Defendants filed a motion in which they seek to have docket entry number 92 stricken and removed from the public record, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. (Mot. at 4:4-11.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

Docket entry number 92 is the parties' settlement agreement, which Plaintiffs have filed. Plaintiffs had previously requested to file the parties' settlement agreement under seal. That request was denied in an order filed May 20, 2008, since Plaintiffs failed to provide "sufficient justification that the settlement agreement should be filed under seal." (Order at 2:13-14, Dkt. No. 90.) The May 20, 2008 Order directed the Clerk of Court to return the settlement agreement to Plaintiffs' counsel. Subsequently, on May 23, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the settlement agreement on the public docket stating this filing was Plaintiffs' "attempt to comply with the Court's May 20, 2008 Order. . . ." (Notice of Filing Settlement Agreement, Dkt. No. 92.) However, nothing in the Court's May 20, 2008 Order required Plaintiffs to file the settlement agreement.

Defendants argue in their motion to strike docket entry 92:

Ignoring . . . Defendants' oral and written objections, and in direct violation of the express terms of the parties' confidential Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs improperly, and in bad faith, filed the parties' confidential Settlement Agreement as a public document. Plaintiffs' sanctionable conduct should not be condoned by this Court, nor should the Court allow Plaintiffs to use the civil litigation system to undermine the strong public interest in favor of the enforcement of contracts and the protection of private agreements.

(Mot. at 3:8-15.)

But, as previously stated in the May 20, 2008 Order, the Court "was not told that the parties had a confidential settlement agreement" that they expected the Court to enforce when the Court agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and the Court is not bound by the parties' confidentiality provision of their settlement agreement. (Order, May 20, 2008.) Nor was jurisdiction retained over the parties' settlement agreement when this action was dismissed. Jurisdiction was retained "solely for the purpose of hearing and ruling upon Plaintiffs' application re legal entitlement to attorney's fees. . . ." (Order, Feb. 26, 2008.) Since the parties' dispute over docket entry 92 regards the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, it is outside the scope of the retained jurisdiction. Therefore, Defendants' motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

READY TRANSPORT, INC. v. AAR MANUFACTURING, INC.

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 29, 2008
2:06-cv-1053-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)
Case details for

READY TRANSPORT, INC. v. AAR MANUFACTURING, INC.

Case Details

Full title:READY TRANSPORT, INC., a Texas corporation, AVAILABLE SHIPPERS, INC., a…

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

Date published: May 29, 2008

Citations

2:06-cv-1053-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)