The same objection was made and unqualifiedly rejected in another, related appeal prosecuted by plaintiff Thomas Hutchinson. We adhere to the rationale and decision issued in that case. Plaintiffs also challenge the district court's denial of their motion to unseal certain materials obtained through discovery in connection with this and related litigation. These materials were covered by a protective order which plaintiffs repeatedly asked the court to vacate so they could use the materials in lawsuits pending elsewhere. Two other orders denying such relief have already been affirmed by this court.
Plaintiffs provide no adequate grounds for deviating from previous decisions denying relief.
Plaintiffs have moved to strike this supplemental authority under Fed. Because the proffered authority relates solely to laches, and our disposition of that issue here turns on case-specific procedural grounds, Spanierman is immaterial to our decision. The motion to strike and request to take judicial notice are therefore denied as moot. Our disposition of the appeal, affirming summary judgment for defendants under the doctrine of laches and the statute of limitations, does not turn on the identity of the present owners of the painting in question. Indeed, it renders plaintiffs' interest in that question moot.