MMCA Group Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider any documents not found to be sealable, plaintiff shall file such documents in the public record no later than December 19, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 16, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / United States District Court MMCA GROUP, LTD., Plaintiffs, No. C-06-7067 MMC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File Documents under Seal," filed December 3, 2008, by which plaintiff seeks to file under seal certain documents submitted in support of its opposition to defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's ("HP") motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed. Having read and considered the motion and the declarations of Frederick J. Geonetta and Erin A. Smart in support thereof, the Court rules as follows. 1. With respect to exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to the Declaration of Kenneth A. Frucht ("Frucht declaration"), the Declaration of Moragn A. Cherry ("Cherry declaration") and exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 thereto, the Declaration of Thomas Byrne ("Byrne declaration") and exhibits 1, 6, and 7 thereto, the Declaration of Aldo Alvarez, the Declaration of Pedro Martinez, the Declaration of Lau Geckler, and the unredacted version of plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to HP's
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
motion,1 the motion is GRANTED. 2. Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Frucht declaration appear to have been designated "confidential" by HP, as plaintiff makes no showing as to their sealability Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any material designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion for a sealing order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). "Within five days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality." Id. Here, HP's responsive declaration fails to establish "that the designated information is sealable." See id. Accordingly, with respect to exhibits 3 and 4 to the Frucht declaration, the motion is DENIED. 3. With respect to exhibit 1 to the Cherry declaration and exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the Byrne declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that plaintiff no longer seeks to file such documents under seal. (See Geonetta decl. ¶ 5.) The Clerk shall file under seal all of the above-referenced documents found to be sealable. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider any documents not found to be sealable, plaintiff shall file such documents in the public record no later than December 19, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
On December 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a redacted version of its memorandum in the public record. 2
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?