alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION, SUPPORTING 

DECLARATIONS, AND SUPPORTING 

EXHIBITS THERETO

 Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) has filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

Portions Its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Motion for Expedited Discovery, Supporting 

Declarations, and Supporting Exhibits Thereto (“Administrative Motion”). 

 Having considered the Administrative Motion, and good cause to seal having been shown, 

the Court GRANTS Waymo’s Administrative Motion and ORDERS sealed the documents listed 

below: 

Document Portions to Be Filed Under Seal 

Waymo’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Highlighted Portions 

Declaration of Jordan Jaffe (“Jaffe Decl.”) Highlighted Portions 

Waymo’s Identification of Trade Secrets, and Entire Documents 
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- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

attachments thereto 

(Exs. 1-21 to the Jaffe Decl.) 

Declaration of Gary Brown Highlighted Portions 

Declaration of Michael Janosko Entire Document 

Declaration of Tim Willis (“Willis Decl.”) Highlighted Portions 

Exhibits to Willis Decl. Entire Document 

Declaration of Pierre-Yves Droz (“Droz Decl.”) Highlighted Portions 

Exhibits to Droz Decl. Entire Document 

Declaration of Gregory Kintz (“Kintz Decl.”) Highlighted Portions 

Kintz Decl. Appendix B Highlighted Portions 

Declaration of William Grossman (“Grossman 

Decl.”) 

Highlighted Portions 

Exhibit to Grossman Decl. Entire Document 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________, 2017 

 

 HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP 

United States District Court Judge
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have
issued our report dated March18, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of American Realty Capital
Trust, Inc. and subsidiary on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Post-effective Amendment
No. 7 to the Registration Statement and Prospectus of American Realty
Capital Trust, Inc. on Form S-11 (File No. 333-145949).





/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP





Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania




March18,
2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RICARDO JIMENEZ, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-340

)

AL THOMSPON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order submitted by

the parties (Docket # 48), seeking the Court’s approval of a proposed Stipulated Protective Order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Because the proposed order is deficient in

two ways, it will be DENIED.

 Rule 26(c)(7) allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. See

Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, a protective order must extend only to “properly demarcated categor[ies] of

legitimately confidential information.” Id.

Here, the proposed definition of “Confidential” seeks to protect the personnel records of

all current or former employees of Defendant CRST Specialized Transportation, Inc. (Proposed

Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 2.) But “not all information in an employee’s personnel file is

considered private.” Little v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am., Inc., No. 04-1034, 2006 WL

1554317, at *4 (C.D. Ill. June 5, 2006). For example, “there is nothing confidential about an

employee’s job title, job description, hiring date, or work assignment and location.” Id.; see also

Smith v. City of Chicago, No. 04 C 2710, 2005 WL 3215572, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Therefore,
this proposed category of confidential information is overly broad. 

Also, paragraph 10 of the proposed order states that it shall continue to be binding after

the conclusion of the litigation and that the Court shall retain jurisdiction after the conclusion of

the action. But the Court is unwilling to enter a protective order that suggests the Court retain

jurisdiction of any kind after the resolution of the case. E.E.O.C. v. Clarice’s Home Care Serv.,

Inc., No. 3:07-cv-601 GPM, 2008 WL 345588, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008) (encouraging the

parties to make a contractual agreement among themselves for the return of sensitive documents

without court oversight); see also Large v. Mobile Tool Int’l, Inc., No. 1:02-CV-177, 2010 WL

3120254, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2010). 

It is important to remember that “the public at large pays for the courts and therefore has

an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.” Cincinnati Insurance, 178 F.3d

at 945-46. Accordingly, a protective order “may not issue absent an appropriate showing of

good cause, as well as adherence to the other limitations the Seventh Circuit has emphasized

apply to such orders.” Shepard v. Humke, No. IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003 WL 1702256, at *2

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2003). 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective

Order. (Docket # 48.) The parties may, however, submit a revised proposed protective order

consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c)(7) and Seventh Circuit case law. 

SO ORDERED. Enter for this 24th day of September, 2014. 

S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12229]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[WY-920-41-5700; WYW118068]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

May 8, 1995.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW118068 for lands in Carbon County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination. The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for 
rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, 
per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW118068 effective November 1, 1994, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Pamela J. Lewis,
Supervisory Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 95-12229 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Global Brands Acquisition Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                      
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: June 12, 2008


/s/ Joel J. HorowitzName:


Joel J. HorowitzTitle:


Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---
EX-34.7
(logo) ERNST&YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 1000
55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Phone:  (404) 874-8300
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Real Estate Tax Solutions Limited ('the Company'
or 'ZCRETS') complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Tax Source
(ZCTS) Real Estate Tax Outsourcing Platform (the Platform) as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2007. The Company has determined that only certain
servicing criteria Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), Item 1122(d)(2)(vi), Item
1122(d)(4)(xi), Item 1122(d)(4)(xii), and Item 1122(d)(4)(xiii) are applicable
to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by
this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by them with
respect to the Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's
assertion for the Platform and Servicers covered by this report. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the Platform. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



February 14, 2008



A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
EX-34.2
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800
Dallas TX 75201-2997
Telephone (214) 999 1400
Facsimile (214) 754 7991


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas,
L.P. (the "Company" and an indirect subsidiary of The First American
Corporation) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for
residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the
Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the
"Platform"), as of December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended, excluding
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are
not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the
Platform. Management's assertion identifies the individual securities defined by
management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and the servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent
to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and
commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 12, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ROCKY MARCIANO SHROYER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-00206-RLM-SLC

)

C DANIEL, Sgt., individually, jointly )

and severally, and in his individual and )

official capacity, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Agreed Motion for Stipulated Protective Order (DE 40)

seeking approval of a proposed agreed protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(c). Because the proposed order is inadequate in two ways, the motion will be

DENIED without prejudice.

“[T]he public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at

all stages of a judicial proceeding.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,

178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). A protective order “may not issue absent an appropriate

showing of good cause, as well as adherence to the other limitations the Seventh Circuit has

emphasized apply to such orders.” Shepard v. Humke, IP 01-1103-C-H/K, 2003 WL 1702256, at

*2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2003). 

Here, Paragraph 12 of the proposed order states that the Court shall retain jurisdiction

after the termination of this action to enforce the provisions of, and resolve any disputes arising

out of, the protective order. The Court, however, is unwilling to enter a protective order that

suggests it retain jurisdiction of any kind after resolution of the case. See E.E.O.C. v. Clarice’s
Home Care Serv., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-601, 2008 WL 345588, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008)

(encouraging the parties to make a contractual agreement among themselves for the return of

sensitive documents without court oversight); see also Large v. Mobile Tool Int’l, Inc., No. 1:02-

CV-177, 2010 WL 3120254, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2010). 

In addition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that a protective order must

“make[] explicit that either party and any interested member of the public can challenge the

secreting of particular documents.” Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d at 946. The proposed order,

however, does not contain this language. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ Agreed Motion for

Stipulated Protective Order (DE 40). The parties may submit a revised proposed protective

order consistent with the requirements of Rule 26(c) and Seventh Circuit case law.

SO ORDERED. 

Enter for this 31st day of August 2015. 

S/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Leon O. Moulder, Jr., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (this report) of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (registrant);
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30,
2009



/S/    LEON O. MOULDER,
JR. Leon O. Moulder, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                               60,834
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       641,882
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         952,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,703,306
<PP&E>                              801,661
<DEPRECIATION>                      381,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,411,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,647,212
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             58,066
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,411,238
<SALES>                           2,161,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                             1,666,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,666,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,892,553  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  305,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,488,097)        
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,488,097)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-51459

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

JUAN CARLOS ZACARIAS-AMADOR

 Defendant - Appellant

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Western District of Texas

(04-CR-668)

---------------------

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case for resentencing in light of the Supreme Court’s

recent opinion in Booker and this Court’s opinion in Mares is

granted.

_______________

*Pursuant to 5

th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion in 

the alternative to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14

days from the Court’s denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and

remand is moot.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00618-CV

Victor E. LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, 

VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-00960

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. 

Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED March 12, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Franklin OWUSU-ANSAH, petitioner, v. The COCA-COLA COMPANY.

No. 13-460.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.