Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. v. URS Corp.

April 18, 2007

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C., PLAINTIFF,
v.
URS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas W. Phillips United States District Judge

Phillips/Guyton

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the memorandum and order filed by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton [Doc. 17]. Defendant objected to the order of the magistrate judge [Doc. 18]. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a response to defendant's objection to the magistrate judge's memorandum and order [Doc. 19].

In its objection, the defendant requests the Court to review the arguments and authorities presented in its letter brief submitted to the magistrate judge under seal on March 20, 2007. After careful review of the memorandum and order and the record, the Court readily concludes that the magistrate judge has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the legal issues presented in defendant's requests for relief. Therefore, the Court is in complete agreement with the magistrate judge's determinations, finding that (1) the complaint filed in this action need not be sealed; (2) that the defendant need not be referred to as "Doe Corporation" or in some similar anonymous manner; and (3) that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to file a version of its complaint identifying the defendant only as "Doe Corporation" and removing from the complaint "confidential information" contained in paragraphs 5-7. Further, the Court is agreement with the remaining findings of the magistrate judge to which the defendant has not voiced objection.

For the reasons stated in the memorandum and order, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling, defendant's requests for relief as made at the status conference on March 13, 2007 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth by the magistrate judge; defendant's objection [Doc. 18] is hereby OVERRULED in its entirety; and the M&O is ACCEPTED IN WHOLE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20070418

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.