Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation

S.D. California

Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation

DecidedJanuary 3, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-00073

StatusUnknown

This text of Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation (Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Case No.: 18cv73-MMA (AGS) 11 California limited liability company, ORDER RE: REDACTED VERSION 12 OF JANUARY 2, 2020 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On January 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order ruling on Defendant Ontel Products 19 Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Daubert motions and motion for summary judgment. See 20 SEALED Doc. No. 130. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Order under 21 seal.1 “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court finds that compelling reasons 25 do not justify maintaining the entirety of the Order under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 26 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court will issue a 27 28 1 redacted version of the Order. 2 To assist the Court in determining the appropriate extent of the redactions, and in 3 || light of the Court’s sealing order (Doc. No. 116), the Court ORDERS the parties to 4 submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order directly to the undersigned’ 5 || Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, no later than 6 || January 10, 2020. The Court will review the proposed submission and issue a redacted 7 || version of the January 2, 2020 Order in due course. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: January 3, 2020 12 phi LTu- / hilt 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Case No.: 18cv73-MMA (AGS) 11 California limited liability company, ORDER RE: REDACTED VERSION 12 OF JANUARY 2, 2020 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ONTEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On January 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order ruling on Defendant Ontel Products 19 Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Daubert motions and motion for summary judgment. See 20 SEALED Doc. No. 130. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Order under 21 seal.1 “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court finds that compelling reasons 25 do not justify maintaining the entirety of the Order under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 26 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court will issue a 27 28 1 redacted version of the Order. 2 To assist the Court in determining the appropriate extent of the redactions, and in 3 || light of the Court’s sealing order (Doc. No. 116), the Court ORDERS the parties to 4 submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order directly to the undersigned’ 5 || Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, no later than 6 || January 10, 2020. The Court will review the proposed submission and issue a redacted 7 || version of the January 2, 2020 Order in due course. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: January 3, 2020 12 phi LTu- / hilt 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/airhawk-international-llc-v-ontel-products-corporation-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack