Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 171

ORDER GRANTING Administrative Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 134 . Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2008)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 171

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

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [E-FILED AND LODGED WITH THE COURT PURSUANT TO LR 79-5(d)] Date: N/A Time: N/A Courtroom: E, 15th Floor Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH(EDL)

HUI-101720v1

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation (together, "Oracle") have filed an Administrative Motion to File Their Motion to Compel and Supporting Documents Under Seal. The Administrative Motion requests that portions of the Motion to Compel and certain supporting documents be filed under seal because they contain information designated by Defendants as "Confidential Information" or "Confidential Information ­ Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order in this action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides broad discretion for a trial court to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of "a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). In particular, when the request for sealing concerns discovery documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of good cause to seal the documents is sufficient to justify protection under Rule 26(c). See Navarro v. Eskanos & Adler, Case No. C-06 02231 WHA(EDL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24864 at *7 (March 22, 2007) (citing Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants filed the declarations required under Local Rule 79-5 to provide evidence of good cause for this Court to permit filing under seal. Those declarations establish both that Defendants have considered and treated the information contained in the subject documents as confidential or proprietary, and that public disclosure of such information would result in a particularized harm or prejudice to the Defendants. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the following documents shall be filed under seal: 1. the redacted versions of Exs. C and W attached to the Declaration of Geoffrey M. Howard in Support of Oracle's Motion to Compel Production of Clawed Back Documents ("Howard Decl."); 2. 3. Exs. E through H, J, and X to the Howard Decl.; and the non-redacted version of Oracle's Motion to Compel Production of Clawed Back Documents, which references information contained in Exs. C, E-H, J, W and X to the Howard Decl.
HUI-101720v1

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH(EDL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Further, the Court ORDERS that because the non-redacted versions of Exs. B, C, U, V and W to the Howard Decl. (the "Contested Documents" in Oracle's Motion to Compel) are allegedly privileged attorney-client communications that have been lodged by Defendants for in camera review only, in order to preserve Defendants' claim of privilege over those documents, Exs. B, C, U, V and W to the Howard Decl. shall not be filed in any manner (public, sealed or otherwise) and instead shall remain protected in the Court's chambers pending this Court's resolution of Oracle's motion to compel production of clawed back documents. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT ED

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HUI-101720v1

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

8/29/08 Dated: _____________________

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH(EDL)

A

C

LI

FO

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States MagistrateLaporte Judge h D. Elizabet Judge

R NIA

O ORD IT IS S

ERED

RT U O

NO

RT

H