Laurie Jones, individually v. Avidyne Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for**
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURIE JONES, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Christopher Jones, deceased,
Plaintiff,
and
DIANE KARSTEN; PAULA MESERVE,
Intervenors - Appellants,
v.
AVIDYNE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-35968
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01656-ST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2012**
Seattle, Washington
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for***
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
2
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,
District Judge.***
Diane Karsten and Paula Meserve contend that the magistrate judge erred in
ordering them and other nonparties to return unredacted copies of a show-cause
hearing transcript. We disagree. Karsten and Meserve waived any objection to the
redactions, see Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002),
and, in any event, the redaction order accorded with the common law right of
access, see Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137–38 (9th
Cir. 2003). Because the redactions were proper, the magistrate judge had authority
to order the return of unredacted copies of the transcript. The district court
properly affirmed that order.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --