Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00874-MRK

Document 74

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LIGHT SOURCES, INC., and TAN SYSTEMS, INC. Plaintiffs, v. COSMEDICO LIGHT, INC., Defendant.

: : : : : : : : :

NO. 3:03CV874(MRK)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 10, 2004, the Defendants in the above-captioned case filed sealed documents containing the Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [doc. #69] and the Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [doc. #70]. On September 14, 2004, the Plaintiffs in the above captioned case filed sealed documents containing the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [doc. #71]; the Plaintiffs' Joint Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Disputed Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [doc. #72]; and the Plaintiffs' Appendix to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Partial Summary Judgment [doc. #73]. All parties shall have until October 1, 2004 to show cause why these documents [doc. #69, 70, 71, 72, and 73] have all been filed under seal in their entirety without any accompanying explanation or justification, in violation of the Court's Order of December 18, 2003 [doc. #30]. -1-

Case 3:03-cv-00874-MRK

Document 74

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 2 of 2

As a reminder, this Court's Order of December 18, 2003, clearly stated, inter alia, that if either party wants to designate anything filed with the Court as confidential and place it under seal, that party will have to make a separate motion specifying precisely what is to be kept under seal and demonstrating good cause as to why the Court should depart from the strong presumption against sealing any court records to public inspection. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978); Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Orion Pictures, Corp. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.), 21 F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir. 1994). Both parties must file redacted public versions of the aforementioned documents [doc. #69, 70, 71, 72, and 73] by October 1, 2004, in which only the specific, narrowly drawn material that the party is claiming is confidential is redacted from the document. By October 1, 2004, the parties must also file a motion demonstrating good cause for any redactions. If the parties do not comply with these requirements by October 1, 2004, the Court will unseal the entire file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut; September 21, 2004

-2-