Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 169.1)

Full text

          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC              Document 169-1    Filed 03/09/23   Page 1 of 2



 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
10                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                     SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12   CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,                      Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
     individually and on behalf of all others similarly
13   situated,                                            [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’
                                                          ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
14                                     Plaintiffs,        CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
15          v.                                            PARTY’S MATERIALS SHOULD BE
                                                          SEALED
16   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
                                                          Hon. Edward M. Chen
17                                    Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


         [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
               WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEALED
                              Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC             Document 169-1          Filed 03/09/23      Page 2 of 2



 1           Having considered Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s
 2   Materials Should Be Sealed, relating to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
 3   Certification (“Reply”), materials in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion, and any responses
 4   from the designating party, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5;
 5           IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
 6           The following portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply and supporting documents may be filed under seal:
 7     Exhibit to Andre M. Mura Declaration in Support               Designating                  Ruling
                    of Reply or Portion of Reply                        Party
 8    Ex. 1 (Excerpts of Gerhard Dep.)                             Defendant
 9    Page 1, line 12 (between “CLEAR had” and “—which”)           Defendant
      Page 1, line 12 (between “potentially” and “and”)            Defendant
10    Page 1, line 13 (between “and” and “information”)            Defendant
      Page 1, line 13 (between “that” and end of sentence)         Defendant
11
      Page 10, lines 15-17 (entire sentence)                       Defendant
12    Page 10, lines 17-18 (between “benefits” and end of          Defendant
      parenthetical)
13    Page 10, lines 18-19 (between “benefits as” and end of       Defendant
      parenthetical)
14
      Page 10, lines 19-20 (entire parenthetical)                  Defendant
15    Page 10, lines 21-22 (between “claiming” and end of          Defendant
      parenthetical)
16    Page 10, lines 22-23 (entire parenthetical)                  Defendant
17    Page 10, lines 23-25 (between “benefits from” and end        Defendant
      of parenthetical)
18    Page 10, lines 27-27.5 (between “suggests” and “based        Defendant
      on”)
19    Page 10, line 27.5 (between “based on” and “due to”)         Defendant
20    Page 10, line 27.5 (between “due to” and end of              Defendant
      sentence)
21    Page 11, line 13 (between “keep” and “of dollars”)           Defendant
22
23   IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25   DATED: ______________________                          ___________________________
                                                            EDWARD M. CHEN
26                                                          United States District Judge
27
28

       [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
             WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEALED
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
                                            1


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.169.1.pdf

Size

199,691 bytes

SHA-256

2502c3c8d80089868b055cb42a4214da435c9c8fcc714fe11cd934f01f134726

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.169.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)