Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 690

Proposed Order re 673 MOTION to Seal Defendants' Administrative Motion to Permit Defendants to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Documents Supporting Defendants' Cross Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Sum by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 4/7/2010)

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

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

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

Pending before this Court is Defendants SAP AG's, SAP America, Inc.'s, and TomorrowNow, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") Administrative Motion to Permit Defendants to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Documents Supporting Defendants' Cross Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment ("Administrative Motion") (D.I. 673) and Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.'s (now known as "Oracle America, Inc."), Oracle International Corporation's, Oracle EMEA Limited's, and Siebel Systems, Inc.'s (collectively, "Oracle") Response In Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion ("Oracle's Response") (D.I. 688). 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. P. 26(c). When
the request for sealing concerns discovery documents attached to a dispositive motion, the moving party must provide "compelling reasons" to justify protection under Rule 26(c). See Kamakana v.

City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In compliance with this Court's Standing Order for Cases Involving Sealed or Confidential Documents, Rule 26(c) and Civil Local Rule 79-5, Oracle has filed the Declaration of Jennifer Gloss (the "Gloss Declaration") in support of Defendants' Administrative Motion on April 7, 2010. Oracle provides compelling reasons for this Court to permit filing the requested exhibit under seal. The Gloss Declaration establishes both that Oracle has considered and treated the information contained in the subject documents as confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary, and that public disclosure of such information would create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm and prejudice to Oracle. The Gloss Declaration also establishes that the request for sealing is narrowly tailored. Having considered Defendants' Administrative Motion, Oracle's Response, and the Gloss Declaration filed in support thereof, and compelling reasons having been shown: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendants' Administrative Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the unredacted versions of Defendants' Cross Motion and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Defendants' 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

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

Cross Motion and Opposition") at 16:12-14 and 17:2-4; Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Cross Motion and Opposition ("Lanier Declaration") at 41:11-24; Exhibit 19 to the Lanier Declaration at 11:24-12:1; and Exhibit 20 to the Lanier Declaration at 42:7-43:3 and 46:13-47:22. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________, 2010 Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge

3

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION