Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00560-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANISLAUS FOOD PRODUCTS CASE NO. CV F 09-0560 LJO SMS

COMPANY,

ORDERONREDACTIONSANDVACATING

HEARING

Plaintiff, 

vs.

USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

In reviewing the pending motions to dismiss, it has become apparent to the Court that the parties

have not taken this Court’s orders seriously that the redactions to the motions, oppositions, and other

papers must be “narrowly tailored.” In one of too many examples to mention, plaintiff redacts its

opposition arguments on p. 16, lines 4-14 dealing with its status as a consumer. In another example, the

Complaint (Doc. 138) redacts paragraphs 94-97, which deal with the structure and organization of U.S.

Steel, POSCO, and the relationship to UPI. Defendants U.S. Steel, Pitcal, POSCO just recently filed

their redacted version of the Joint Motion and the Court notes that vast portions are redacted. (See Doc.

168, 209, 211.) 

In total, this abuse of the Local Rules regarding redactions and sealing documents jeopardizes

any future sealing of documents. In addition, the continued abuse will result in an order to unseal that

which has been sealed to date. Within ten (10) days of the service of this order, the parties who have

filed sealed documents shall file “Revised Redacted” documents which truly are narrowly tailored. 

Failure to do so will result in the Court making the appropriate order.

In light of the above, the hearing set for July 15, 2010 is vacated. The Court will determine if

and when to reset the hearing after review of the expected Revised Redacted documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Case 1:09-cv-00560-LJO-BAM Document 212 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 1