Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01696

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{496}} Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 OAKLAND DIVISION 10 Case No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (SK) 11 CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, et al., CLASS ACTION 12 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 13 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 14 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., SEAL 15 Defendant. Complaint Filed: April 14, 2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.' ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (SK) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE 1 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 2 Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Court finds that 3 good cause does not exist to seal the materials at issue. 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED. 5 6 Accordingly, the following documents may not be filed under seal: 7 Document or Portion of Evidence Offered in Support Order Document Sought to be of Sealing 8 Sealed 9 Plaintiffs' Motion to None - Designated Confidential DENIED. Permit Contemporaneous by Defendant Tata Consultancy 10 Testimony From A Services, Ltd., which has not Remote Location Under filed a supporting declaration as 11 Rule 43(a): required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1).  4:19-5:8 12  Footnotes 6, 7, 9, 11 13 Exhibit 5: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 14 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 15 filed a supporting declaration as 16 required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit 6: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 17 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 18 filed a supporting declaration as required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 19 Exhibit 7: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 20 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 21 filed a supporting declaration as required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 22 Exhibit 8: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 23 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 24 filed a supporting declaration as required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 25 Exhibit 9: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. document by Defendant Tata Consultancy 26 Services, Ltd., which has not 27 filed a supporting declaration as required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.' ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (SK) Exhibit 10: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 1 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy 2 Services, Ltd., which has not filed a supporting declaration as 3 required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit 11: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 4 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy 5 Services, Ltd., which has not filed a supporting declaration as 6 required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit 12: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 7 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 8 filed a supporting declaration as 9 required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit 13: Entire None - Designated Confidential DENIED. 10 document by Defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., which has not 11 filed a supporting declaration as required by L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 12 13 The Order terminates Docket Number 496. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: October 11, 2018 __________________________________ 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.' ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (SK)