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.

Velasco v. Chrysler Group LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 30, 2014

PETER VELASCO, CHRISTOPHER WHITE, JACQUELINE YOUNG, and CHRISTOPHER LIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant.

ORDER RE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY'S MOTION TO UNSEAL AND MOTION TO INTERVENE [Dkt. Nos. 81, 82]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are motions by nonparty Center for Auto Safety ("CAS") to intervene in this matter and to unseal documents related to Plaintiffs' prior motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. No. 49), which was denied on October 27, 2014. (Dkt. No. 88.) Having considered the parties' submissions and oral arguments, the Court adopts the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is a putative class action regarding the alleged failure of an electronic control unit, known as the "TIPM-7, " installed in a number of late-model Chrysler vehicles. On March 26, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kenton issued a protective order allowing any party to designate a document in the case "Confidential, " which would protect the document from public view. (Dkt. No. 35.) On September 18, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction authorizing them to send potential class members a preliminary notice warning of the potential for dangerous component failures in Chryslers equipped with the TIPM-7. (Dkt. No. 49.) Plaintiffs applied to submit certain documents related to the motion "provisionally under seal, " because the parties were still attempting to reach settlement. (Dkt. No. 51.) Plaintiffs nonetheless expressed the opinion that the documents should be in the public record, and they requested the right to subject the documents to "later motion practice" to unseal "should the parties be unable to resolve their disagreement." (Id.)

Defendant similarly filed an application to submit documents in opposition to the motion under seal, primarily because the documents constituted confidential business information. (Dkt. No. 63.) The Court granted both parties leave to file under seal. The documents filed under seal were as follows:

• Unredacted copies of the Motion and Memorandum in Support of the Motion, the proposed Order, the Opposition, and the Reply;
• Unredacted declaration of David Stein and Exhibits A-U attached thereto;
• Unredacted declaration of Rachel Naor and Exhibit P attached thereto;
• Unredacted declaration of James Bielenda and Exhibits A-D attached thereto;
• Exhibits B, C, E, F, and Q attached to the declaration of Case 2:13-cv-08080-DDP-VBK Document 105 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:2477 Dylan Hughes;
• The parties' various applications and proposed orders regarding the sealing of the above documents.

On October 27, 2014 the Court heard oral arguments and denied the motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 88.)

On October 23, 2014, nonparty CAS filed these motions to intervene in the case and to unseal the sealed portions of the record on the motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. Nos. 81, 82.) ...


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.