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

Filing 445

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 document referenced in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3, plaintiff shall file such document in th e public record no later than February 13, 2009. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider any document referenced in paragraph 4 or paragraph 5, plaintiff, no later than February 13, 2009, shall either file such document in the public record or file a renewed administrative motion to seal accompanied by a declaration establishing such document is sealable. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 9, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009)

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 January 30, 2009, by which plaintiff seeks to file under seal certain documents submitted in support of its opposition to defendant PICA Corporation's ("PICA") motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment. PICA has filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows. 1. With respect to the Declaration of Thomas Byrne ("Byrne Declaration") and Exhibits 1, 6, and 7 thereto, the Declaration of Morgan Cherry ("Cherry Declaration") and Exhibits 2-14 thereto, the Declaration of Lau Geckler, the Declaration of Jorge Barahona, the Declaration of Pedro Martinez, the Declaration of Aldo Alvarez, the Declaration of Robert Creswell ("Creswell Declaration") and Exhibits 1 and 3-9 thereto, Exhibits 5-11 and 14-23 to the Declaration of Frederick J. Geonetta in Opposition to Defendant PICA's Motion ("Geonetta Summary Judgment Declaration"), and the unredacted version of plaintiff'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

memorandum in opposition to PICA's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment,1 the motion is GRANTED. 2. With respect to Exhibit 2 to the Creswell Declaration, plaintiff states "defendant PICA and possibly defendant HP may seek" to have such document filed under seal. (See Geonetta Decl. in Support of Admin. Mot. to Seal ("Geonetta Sealing Declaration") ¶ 8.) 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, PICA has not filed a responsive declaration, and the responsive declaration of defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") fails to establish "that the designated information is sealable." See id. Accordingly, with respect to Exhibit 2 to the Creswell Declaration, the motion is DENIED. 3. With respect to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the Byrne Declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Cherry Declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that plaintiff no longer seeks to file such documents under seal. (See Geonetta Sealing Decl. ¶ 5.) 4. With respect to Exhibits 8-12 to the Byrne Declaration, Exhibit 1 to the Barahona Declaration, and the Geonetta Summary Judgment Declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that plaintiff has failed to file a declaration establishing that such documents are sealable. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b)(1). The Court, however, will afford plaintiff an opportunity to supplement its showing with respect to said documents. 5. With respect to Exhibits 1-4 and 12-13 to the Geonetta Summary Judgment Declaration, the motion is DENIED, for the reason that plaintiff's statement that the Geonetta Summary Judgment Declaration "contains a number of documents produced by On January 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a redacted version of its memorandum in the public record. 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

the parties over the course of the litigation, most of which are designated by one or more parties as either Confidential or for Attorneys' Eyes Only" (see Geonetta Sealing Decl. ¶ 9) 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").2 The Court, however, will afford plaintiff an opportunity to supplement its showing with respect to said documents. The Clerk shall file under seal all of the above-referenced documents found to be sealable. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider any document referenced in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3, supra, plaintiff shall file such document in the public record no later than February 13, 2009. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider any document referenced in paragraph 4 or paragraph 5, supra, plaintiff, no later than February 13, 2009, shall either file such document in the public record or file a renewed administrative motion to seal accompanied by a declaration establishing such document is sealable. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2009 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

With respect to Exhibits 5-11 and 14-23 to the Geonetta Summary Judgment Declaration, HP has filed a declaration establishing such documents are sealable. (See Smart Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) 3

2