Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lansdale v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 10, 2018

Michael L. Lansdale, Plaintiff,
v.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

          BECKY R. THORSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing (Doc. No. 204) for documents related to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41). Local Rule 5.6 governs the filing of documents under seal in this District. The Local Rule establishes a uniform process for filing information under seal in civil cases to reduce the amount of information that is sealed in civil cases and ensure that a person's right to keep confidential or sensitive information secret is considered and balanced against the public's right to access. The present motion illustrates a textbook example of “the parties filing too much information under seal in civil cases.” D. Minn. LR 5.6 advisory committee's notes to 2017 amendment.

         First, the parties have provided a list of documents that should be unsealed. The Clerk will be directed to unseal the documents proposed by the parties. The Court observes, however, that there was no basis for sealing some of these documents in the first place. (See Doc. No. 36, Aff. of Thomas E. Glennon in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J.) Counsel are advised to review Local Rule 5.6(c) in the future.

         Next, the Court addresses the documents that the parties believe should remain under seal. The Court has counted over 130 documents that the parties seek to keep under seal. A list of the remaining documents at issue is set forth below:

Document No. 27 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 39);
Document No. 29 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 39);
Document Nos. 30-35 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 39);
Document Nos. 43-59 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 61-63 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document No. 65 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document No. 67 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document No. 69 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 72-73 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 75-76 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 78-79 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 81-94 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 96-109 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document Nos. 112-113 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 114);
Document No. 116 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 123);
Document Nos. 118-122 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 123);
Document Nos. 125-126 (statement instead of redacted document at Doc. No. 138);
Document Nos. 130-136 (statement instead of redacted document at ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.