MMCA Group Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al

Filing 392

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. With respect to the documents referenced in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this order, PICA may file, no later than January 5, 2009, a declaration establishing said documents are sealable. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 29, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2008)

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 Before the Court is defendant PICA Corporation's ("PICA") "Administrative Motion to Seal Declarations and Attached Exhibits Filed in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment," filed December 24, 2008. Having read and considered the motion and the Declaration of William C. Acevedo in support thereof ("Acevedo sealing declaration"), the Court rules as follows. 1. With respect to Exhibit D to the Declaration of William C. Acevedo in support of PICA's motion for summary judgment ("Acevedo summary judgment declaration"), the motion is GRANTED. 2. With respect to the Declaration of Rodolfo Diaz ("Diaz declaration"), the Declaration of Rocio Cvar ("Cvar declaration"), the Declaration of Gabriela Toranzo ("Toranzo declaration"), the Declaration of Renata Martinho ("Martinho declaration"), the Declaration of Mauro Chavez ("Chavez declaration") and exhibits A and B thereto, the v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / MMCA GROUP LTD., Plaintiff, No. C-06-7067 MMC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Declaration of Vince Volpi ("Volpi declaration"), the Acevedo summary judgment declaration, and the unredacted version of PICA's memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment,1 the motion is DENIED, for the reason that PICA has failed to file a declaration establishing said documents are sealable. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b)(1). The Court, however, will afford PICA an opportunity to supplement its showing with respect to said documents. 3. With respect to exhibit B to the Acevedo summary judgment declaration, the motion is DENIED. PICA states said document "[has] not been designated confidential by any party" (see Acevedo sealing decl. ¶ 7), and PICA's concern that MMCA "may assert" it contains protected material (see id.) is not a sufficient showing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b)(1). 4. With respect to exhibits A through H to the Diaz declaration, exhibits A and B to the Cvar declaration, exhibit A to the Toranzo declaration, and exhibits A and B to the Martinho declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that PICA's statement that said documents have been designated "confidential" or "highly confidential ­ attorneys' eyes only" pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order (see Acevedo sealing decl. ¶¶ 3-6, 8) is insufficient to establish the documents are sealable. See, e.g., Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (providing "[a] stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal"). The Court, however, will afford PICA an opportunity to supplement its showing with respect to said documents. 5. With respect to exhibit B to the Toranzo declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that, contrary to PICA's assertion, said document has not previously been filed under seal in the instant action and, in fact, was filed in the public record on October 31, 2008. (See Smart decl. filed Oct. 31, 2008, Ex. P.)

Although PICA's memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment is not referenced in the instant motion, an unredacted version of said memorandum has been submitted for filing under seal and has not been filed in the public record. Accordingly, the Court construes the instant motion to include a request to file the unredacted version of the memorandum under seal. 2

1

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

6. With respect to exhibits C and E to the Acevedo summary judgment declaration, the motion is DENIED. PICA states said documents either have been designated "highly confidential ­ attorneys' eyes only" pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order, "or have otherwise been filed under seal." (See Acevedo sealing decl. ¶ 8.) As noted, however, a designation of "highly confidential ­ attorneys' eyes only" is insufficient to establish the documents are sealable. Additionally, said documents have not previously been filed under seal in the instant action and, in fact, were filed in the public record on November 22, 2008 and October 31, 2008, respectively. (See Smart decl. filed Nov. 22, 2008, Ex. A; Smart Decl. filed Oct. 31, 2008, Ex. H.) The Clerk shall not file any of the above-referenced documents at this time. As noted, with respect to the documents referenced in paragraphs 2 and 4, supra, the Court will afford PICA an opportunity to supplement its showing. Specifically, PICA may file, no later than January 5, 2009, a declaration establishing said documents are sealable. After PICA files such declaration, or after the time for such filing has passed without the declaration having been filed, the Clerk will be directed to file under seal all of the abovereferenced documents that the Court has found to be sealable. If, at that time, PICA wishes the Court to consider any documents not found to be sealable, PICA shall file such documents in the public record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 29, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

3