Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01499-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUSTEES ON BEHALF OF THE PRINTING )

SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS JOINT )

EMPLOYER & UNION HEALTH & WELFARE )

FUND, )

) 2:06-cv-1499-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

AMERICAN LITHOGRAPHERS, INC., )

) 

Defendant. )

)

The parties in this closed action, which was dismissed with

prejudice when the parties electronically filed a Stipulation of

Dismissal on December 22, 2006 (“December 22 Stipulation”), have filed

a request to seal the December 22 Stipulation. The parties state the

basis of this request is that the December 22 Stipulation “erroneously

contained the parties’ settlement agreement and release, which [they]

intended to be confidential.” (Req. to Seal Doc., filed Jan. 23,

2007.) The parties state “within five (5) business days” of the

issuance of the requested sealing order, they will “re-file the

Stipulation and Dismissal.” (Id.)

The parties have not provided sufficient justification for a

sealing order. But because of their representation that the December

Case 2:06-cv-01499-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/24/07 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

1 This portion of the December 22 Stipulation is attached since

it dismissed the action without a court order under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a), which authorized the dismissal without a court

order, and it is evident that the parties do not want this portion of

their December 22 Stipulation deleted from the docket.

2

22 Stipulation was improvidently filed, it shall be removed from the

Court’s filing system, except for the stipulated dismissal portion

thereof which is attached to this order.1 CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.

for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating

that an unnecessary, surplus, and improvidently filed document may be

removed from the record). Further, since this action has already been

dismissed with prejudice, the dismissal of this action with prejudice

is nunc pro tunc as of December 22, 2006. See Oswalt v. Scripto,

Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (indicating a dismissal order

could issue even where the parties fail to formally request it). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01499-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2