# Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company

> District Court, N.D. California · June 10, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079248

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** June 10, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079248

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Case No. 20-cv-07683-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SEALING OF ORDER ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
9 v. JUDGMENT

10 COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et
al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 The Court’s order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 318, shall
14 remain under seal until June 24, 2024 at noon, after which it will be filed on the public docket. If
15 the parties believe any references to confidential materials need to be redacted, the parties are
16 directed to file by June 17, 2020 at noon a joint proposed set of redactions along with a table for
17 each item sought to be sealed. The table should also include corresponding citations to where the
18 material has already been sought to be sealed in the omnibus motion to seal and a particularized
19 explanation of compelling reasons to justify the redactions. The parties may file their joint
20 proposed set of redactions via an administrative motion to file under seal.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
1 The parties should not seek redaction of any information that does not meet the compelling
2 reasons standard under Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006),
3 for sealing an order on a dispositive motion. While the Court’s summary judgment order
4 || highlights in yellow the material that appears to be subject to the parties’ omnibus motion to seal,
5 the Court believes that little if anything in those passages meets the high standard set out in
6 || Kamakana. Accordingly, the Court’s strong inclination is to issue the order with no redactions.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 || Dated: 6/10/2024
9 . °
naadee S. GILLIAM, JR. ib
10 United States District Judge
11
a 12

15
16

= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10079248. Public record. Not legal advice.