Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
International Data Group
-
Answer | Filed: May 10, 2024 | Entered: May 10, 2024 Kreatio Software Private Limited v. International Data Group, Inc
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Massachusetts
Answer to Counterclaim
PLAINTIFF KREATIO SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED'S ANSWER to Counterclaim AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT IDG COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS by Kreatio Software Private Limited.(Rothman, Joel)
-
Order | Filed: May 10, 2024 | Entered: May 10, 2024 Kreatio Software Private Limited v. International Data Group, Inc
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Joint Motion for Entry of ESI Order 61 . See attached Order (Kelly, Danielle)
-
Order | Filed: May 10, 2024 | Entered: May 10, 2024 Kreatio Software Private Limited v. International Data Group, Inc
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Protective Order
Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Joint Motion for Protective Order 60 . See Attached Order.
Notwithstanding this order, any motion requesting leave of court to file materials under seal must include a particularized showing for the need for impoundment. The court is guided in this regard by First Circuit precedent and Local Rule 7.2. Because the public has a "presumptive" right of access to judicial documents, United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998)), “‘only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access.’” Id. (quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). The burden is thus on the impoundment-seeking party to show that impoundment will not violate the public's presumptive right of access. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted”) (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)); Miller v. City of Bos., 549 F. Supp. 2d 140, 141 (D. Mass. 2008) (“The proponent of a Protective Order bears the burden of establishing ‘good cause’ for its continuation”) (internal citation omitted). For that reason, when seeking to file under seal any confidential information, a party must show this court good cause for the impoundment. See Kravetz, 706 F.3d at 60. (Kelly, Danielle)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login