Court Opinion

ID: 1021772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:12:00.022637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:46.332754
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  Stepan V. Lunin appeals the district court’s order granting Moog, Inc.’s (“Moog”) motion for a preliminary injunction against him. We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
  
   See Moog, Inc. v. Lunin,
  
  No. 2:06-cv-00238-RBS (E.D. Va. June 7, 2006).
 

  Further, we grant Moog’s motions for protective orders, filed September 6, 2006, September 11, 2006, September 15, 2006, September 25, 2006, and September 29, 2006, in which Moog seeks to seal various pleadings Lunin filed with this court. However, we deny Moog’s September 18, 2006 motion for a protective order because the document this motion targets was never filed with this court. Further, we deny Moog’s August 29, 2006 motion for a protective order because it is duplicative of the relief requested in the September 6, 2006 motion.
 

  We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
 

   AFFIRMED.