Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01642/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01642-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 On January 28, 2008, this Court denied as moot Intervenors’ motion to modify the Protective Order

governing discovery in this case [Doc. No. 65], finding that the deposition testimony at issue did not contain

confidential information and was not subject to the terms of the Protective Order. As a result of that Order, the

deposition testimony became available to the public unless ordered otherwise.

-1-

02cv1642

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD J. PHILLIPS and GEORG-ANNE

PHILLIPS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 02 CV 1642 B (NLS)

ORDER DENYING INTERVENORS’

RESPONSE AND REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S

JANUARY 31, 2008 ORDER

[Doc. No. 70]

On January 31, 2008, the Court entered an Order [Doc. No. 67] staying enforcement of

that portion of this Court’s January 28, 2008 Order [Doc. No. 65] which unseals documents 27,

37, 45, 48, 51 and 53, and sealing its January 30, 2008 Order.1

 Intervenors filed a response and

request for reconsideration of the Court’s January 31, 2008 Order on grounds that (1) Goodyear’s

only avenue of review from that Order is to the Ninth Circuit, and (2) the public interest in the

deposition testimony outweighs any harm to Goodyear by reason of its disclosure. 

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 72 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

02cv1642

 On the first point, Intervenors are incorrect. Any decision made by a Magistrate Judge on

a non-dispositive motion is subject to review by the presiding District Judge in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R. Civ. P. 72(a). On the second point, while the public interest

is certainly a concern, Goodyear’s interest in keeping the deposition testimony private pending

review of this Court’s Order will be forever lost unless the documents that refer to that testimony

remain under seal. Therefore, Intervenors motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 72 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2