Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 05CV1660 J (WMc) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV1660-J (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO BE

RELIEVED OF CONFIDENTIALITY

AGREEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF

FILING REPLY

Before the Court is Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte Application to

be relieved of the parties’ confidentiality agreement for purposes of filing his reply. [Doc. No.

116.] Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes the Application. [Doc.

No. 117.] Plaintiff asserts that he should be relieved of the confidentiality agreement because

Defendant revealed information protected by the confidentiality agreement in its opposition

papers. (Ex Parte Application at 2.) However, Plaintiff does not point to specific portions of

Defendant’s opposition papers that reveal information protected by the confidentiality

agreement, nor does Plaintiff generally describe the type of information that Defendant

disclosed. Rather, Plaintiff merely asserts that “Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Separate

Statement of Uncontroverted Facts discloses all of the ‘confidential’ material that Plaintiff filed

under seal.” (Id.) Because Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application fails to identify a specific portion of

Defendant’s response that violates the confidentiality agreement, the Court cannot ascertain

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 118 Filed 05/24/07 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 05CV1660 J (WMc) 

whether Defendant revealed material protected by the confidentiality agreement. The Court is

thus unable to determine the extent to which Plaintiff should be relieved of his obligation to

comply with the confidentiality agreement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex

Parte Application.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurine

All Parties

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 118 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2