Cybersource Corporation v. Retail Decision, Inc. et al

Filing 124

ORDER granting defendant's motion 109 to file portions of defendant's motion to permit defendant to proceed with deposition; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/7/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 JAMES W. SOONG (SBN: 196092) SoongJ@gtlaw.com DAVID J. PEREZ (SBN: 238136) Email: perezdj@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1900 University Avenue, Fifth Floor East Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 328-8500 Facsimile: (650) 328-8508 SCOTT J. BORNSTEIN (Pro Hac Vice Pending) BornsteinS@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP MetLife Building 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 801-9200 Facsimile: (212) 801-6400 Attorneys for Defendant RETAIL DECISIONS, INC. JAMES R. MYERS (Pro Hac Vice) ROPES & GRAY LLP 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C., 20005-3948 Telephone: (202) 508-4600 Facsimile: (202) 508-4650 MARK D. ROWLAND (SBN: 157862) mark.rowland@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 300 Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: (650) 617-4000 Facsimile: (650) 617-4040 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff; Case No. 3:04-CV-03268-MHP [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 79-5(B) AND (C) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. RETAIL DECISIONS, INC., Defendant. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CASE NO. 3:04-CV-03268-MHP SV 239,158,556v1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Upon consideration of all papers filed and all arguments presented with respect to Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(b) and (c), and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) and (c) is GRANTED; 2. Pages 2:26-3:23, 3:25-4:13, 7:5-11, 7:13-16, 7:25-8:9, 9:12-16, 10:18-22, 12:15-23, and 12:27-28 (footnote 5), of Defendant's Motion to Permit Defendant to Proceed With Deposition of William A. Wright, Ph.D. ("Motion to Permit"), which reference and/or cite to the material and/or information contained in Exhibits C and G to the Declaration of David J. Perez in Support of Defendant Retail Decisions, Inc.'s Motion to Permit Defendant to Proceed With Deposition of William A. Wright, Ph.D. ("Perez Motion to Permit Decl.") filed October 3, 2008, all of which contain information that Plaintiff claims constitutes attorney-client privileged communications and/or attorney work product, shall be filed conditionally under seal pending this Court's consideration of the issues presented in ReD's Motion to Permit, and any opposition or reply thereto, and the Court's resolution of the issue of Plaintiff's claims of privilege or work product.; 3. Exhibit C to the Perez Motion to Permit Decl., shall be filed conditionally under seal pending this Court's consideration of the issues presented in ReD's Motion to Permit, and any opposition or reply thereto, and the Court's resolution of the issue of Plaintiff's claims of privilege or work product; and 4. The final three pages of Exhibit G to the Perez Motion to Permit Decl., which comprise the document contained in Exhibit C, shall be filed conditionally under seal pending this Court's consideration of the issues presented in ReD's Motion to Permit, and any opposition or reply thereto, and the Court's resolution of the issue of Plaintiff's claims of privilege or work product. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 7 DATED: ______________, 2008 JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CASE NO. 3:04-CV-03268-MHP SV 239,158,556v1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?