Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-04997
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bunsow De Mory v. North Forty, Judge Corle allowed amendment of one counterclaim and sealed one phrase in Defendant’s motion.
North Forty Consulting LLC may file a second amended answer and counterclaim addressing the second declaratory-relief claim within 14 days, and one phrase in its motion will be sealed. Bunsow De Mory LLP is the opposing party in the case.
What happened
Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC concerned North Forty’s request for relief from an earlier order involving Bunsow De Mory’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
North Forty asked to amend its answer and counterclaim and sought to seal one phrase in its motion. The court allowed amendment concerning the second claim for declaratory relief, but not the first claim.
Judge Corle also granted North Forty’s sealing motion. North Forty must file its second amended answer and counterclaim within 14 days of the order.
The detailed version
- Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC · No. 3:20-cv-04997
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
The court considered North Forty Consulting LLC’s motion under Rule 60(b), which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order. The request concerned the court’s earlier order regarding Bunsow De Mory LLP’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. North Forty also asked to seal an excerpt from its motion.
Amendment request
The court granted North Forty leave to amend its answer and counterclaim as to the second claim for declaratory relief. The court did not grant leave to amend as to the first claim. The order directed North Forty to file its second amended answer and counterclaim within 14 days.
Sealing request and disposition
North Forty sought to seal one phrase in its motion. The court found that the request was narrowly tailored and consistent with the court’s prior sealing orders and governing authority. Judge Corle granted the sealing motion. The order states that it disposes of docket entries 57 and 58.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.