Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
J.D. Power and Associates
-
Order | Filed: April 25, 2024 | Entered: April 25, 2024 Henson et al. v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois
Insurance | North Carolina Eastern
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
ORDER granting 99 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply to 89 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 4/25/2024. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for other critical information and deadlines. (McNally, Kimberly)
-
Notice | Filed: April 25, 2024 | Entered: April 25, 2024 Henson et al. v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois
Insurance | North Carolina Eastern
Notice to Counsel
Notice to Counsel regarding: 96 Notice. A motion to seal the referenced documents has not been filed within the prescribed time. If a motion is not filed by 4/26/2024, the clerk of court will proceed with unsealing each provisionally sealed docket entry. (McNally, Kimberly)
-
Order | Filed: April 24, 2024 | Entered: April 24, 2024 Taxer v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Insurance | Oregon
Order
ORDER: The Court GRANTS Third Parties J.D. Power and Mitchell International's Motion to File Document Under Seal 66 and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to File Document Under Seal 64 . Third Parties and Defendants have demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to grant their proposed redactions, which are narrower than those proposed by Plaintiffs. They propose redacting confidential business information from the memorandum and supporting exhibits that could be used by competitors for an improper purpose. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commcn's Inc., 435 US 589, 598 (1978)); see also Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrylser Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 109798 (9th Cir. 2016) (indicating that there may be compelling reasons to seal "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing"). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Redacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and supporting exhibits 63 . Within three days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall refile their redacted memorandum and redacted supporting materials consistent with the requested redactions in the Third-Party Motion 66 and Defendants' Response 67 . Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)
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