Legal Opinion
Pall Corp. v. 3M PURIFICATION INC.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided February 10, 2011No. CV 97-7599(RRM)(ETB), CV 03-0092(RRM)(ETB)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BOYLE, United States Magistrate Judge:
By application dated January 24, 2011, the defendant, 3M Purification Inc. (“3M”), sought leave to file its “fully-briefed Renewed Motion for Sanctions” — consisting of approximately 1,400 pages-under seal, on the grounds that it contains information that the plaintiff, Pall Corporation (“Pall”), has designated as confidential under the parties’ protective order. On January 28, 2011, the Court directed the parties to show cause, in writing, why all papers relating to 3M’s motion for sanctions should not be unsealed and to explain why it is necessary…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of OnondagaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. AmodeoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,860 Athalie Doris Joy v. Nelson L. North, Nelson L. NorthCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- In Re Orion Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Topalian v. Hartford Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Binh Thanh Import Export Production & Trade Joint Stock Co. v. Amazon.com Services LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2025
- In re ACTOS Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2023