Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41 RegisterActionDate "2017-07-25" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER denying without prejudice 29 Consent Motion for Protective Order. Paragraph 7 of the proposed protective order provides for sealing of all materials filed with the Court that the parties have designated as confidential. The Court declines to adopt that provision at this time, "because the standard for maintaining information exchanged during the course of discovery as confidential and the standard for maintaining information filed with the Court under seal do not necessarily align especially when the documents a party seeks to seal are filed in connection with a dispositive motion.... Indeed, courts in the Fourth Circuit have made it clear that the mere fact that a document was subject to a blanket protective order does not relieve the parties or a court of the obligation to comply with the Fourth Circuit's otherwise applicable sealing regimen." Colony Ins. Co. v. Peterson, No. 1:10CV581, 2012 WL 1047089, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2012) (unpublished); see also M.D.N.C. LR 5.4. The parties may seek reconsideration of this Text Order by motion supported by a brief setting forth authority warranting entry of the proposed Paragraph 7 or they may submit an amended motion with a revised protective order that complies with applicable law as outlined herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 07/25/2017. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 07/25/2017)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de41 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01286_de39 @default.