Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Micro Focus International PLC
-
Order | Filed: May 31, 2024 IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc. et al
Copyright | New York Southern
Order
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court recently issued a ruling on Micro Focus's motion to exclude. (ECF Nos. 238). When Micro Focus filed their motion papers and reply papers, they asked to file unredacted versions of these documents under seal and to file certain exhibits under seal as well. (ECF Nos. 208, 220). IBM also asked to file an unredacted version of their opposition and certain exhibits under seal. (ECF No. 215). On May 23, 2024, the parties submitted a joint letter stating that t hey do not object to each other's sealing requests. (ECF No. 240). To overcome the presumption of public access afforded to filed documents, the Court must make specific, on the record findings that sealing is (1) necessary "to preserve higher values," and (2) "is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts in this District routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business interests and financial information. See, e.g., Rubiks Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG) (KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021). The Court has reviewed the parties 9; proposed requests and determined that they are narrowly tailored to seal and redact only commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business interests. Consequently, the Clerk of Court is requested to keep ECF Nos. 211, 213, 213-1 to 213- 11, 217, 219, 219-1 to 219-21, 222, and 222-1 as accessible only to selected parties. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik on 5/31/2024) (tg)
-
Order | Filed: May 29, 2024 | Entered: May 29, 2024 IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc. et al
Copyright | New York Southern
Order
ORDER The Court is in receipt of motions from Marcella Ballard, Stephen Yam, and Maria Sinatra seeking to withdraw as counsel (ECF Nos. 241 246). Local Civil Rule 1.4 notes that an attorney seeking to withdraw should file an affidavit stating if they are "asserting a retaining or charging lien." In addition, Local Civil Rule 1.4 provides that "[a]ll applications to withdraw must be served upon the client." None of the submitted declarations state whether a retaining or charging lien is being asserted, nor do they state whether these motions to withdraw were served on their client. Accordingly, by 6/5/2024, Marcella Ballard, Stephen Yam, and Maria Sinatra shall file a letter(s) stating whether they are asserting a retaining or charging lien, whether Defendant has been served with their motions and supporting papers, and whether Defendant consents to the motion. Defense counsel shall also serve a copy of this text order on Defendant and confirm in their letter(s) that they have done so. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik) (Text Only Order) (MC)
-
Response | Filed: May 23, 2024 | Entered: May 23, 2024 IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus (US), Inc. et al
Copyright | New York Southern
Declaration in Support of Motion
DECLARATION of Stephen K. Yam in Support re: 243 MOTION for Stephen K. Yam to Withdraw as Attorney .. Document filed by Micro Focus (US), Inc...(Yam, Stephen)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login