Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02259/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02259-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amphenol Corporation
Counter-claimant
John Bauer
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

 Additionally, the parties fail to submit any legal authority for the requested approval

of their settlement. On a motion for approval of a good faith settlement, the Court does not

determine whether the settlement is reasonable “between the settling parties,” but rather

“vis-a-vis the non-settling defendants.” See Horton v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. App. 3d

727, 733 (1987) (discussing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6). Here, there are no non-settling

defendants.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BAUER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMPHENOL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-2259 MMC

ORDER DENYING JOINT

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

(Docket No. 39)

Before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to file under seal a

“Confidential Stipulation for Approval of Settlement of Commission Claim and Dismissal of

Action Pursuant to Settlement” (“stipulation”) and the declaration of John Bauer in support

thereof (“Bauer Declaration”). The parties have failed to show good cause for a sealing

order.1

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a request

that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a

trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law[.]” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). As

the parties have failed to establish such good cause, their joint administrative motion to file

Case 3:04-cv-02259-MMC Document 41 Filed 03/14/06 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

the above-referenced documents under seal is hereby DENIED. 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(e), the above-referenced documents will not be filed. 

Rather, the Clerk will hold the lodged documents for three days to afford the submitting

party the opportunity to retrieve them; if the submitting party fails to do so, the Clerk shall

dispose of said documents. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e).

This order terminates Docket No. 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02259-MMC Document 41 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2