Apple Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER RE: REQUIRED DECLARATION TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF REPLY UNDER SEAL (Dkt. No. 80). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/20/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 APPLE INC., Case No.: 11-1327 PJH (JSC) Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 ORDER RE: REQUIRED DECLARATION TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF REPLY UNDER SEAL (Dkt. No. 80) AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 17 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file portions of 18 19 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel Discovery under seal pursuant to Local 20 Rule 79-5. (Dkt. No. 80.) Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that a request for sealing “must be 21 narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material” and that a “stipulation, or a 22 blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not 23 suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Plaintiff seeks to seal materials 24 designated by Defendant as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— 25 OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 61) in 26 this action. Plaintiff lists the portions1 of documents Plaintiff wishes to file under seal, 27 28 1 Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of its reply, portions of David J. Sepanik’s declaration, and exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K in their entirety. (Dkt. No. 80.) 1 which is clarified by the redacted version of the documents in question that Plaintiff provided 2 to the Court. 3 At the time of this Order, however, Defendant has not filed a declaration in support of 4 Plaintiff’s motion as required by L.R. 79-5(d), which states that within 7 days of Plaintiff 5 filing an administrative motion to seal documents designated by Defendant as confidential, 6 Defendant “must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated 7 information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, 8 or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” As noted in L.R. 79-5(d), “the 9 document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record” if this responsive Northern District of California declaration is not filed. Defendant may file such a declaration on or before August 22, 2012. 11 United States District Court 10 If none is received, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: August 20, 2012 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2