Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 870

RESPONSE in Support re 857 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Administrative Motion to Permit Defendants to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Documents in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion No. 1 to Exclude Expert Testimon y of Stephen Clarke filed byOracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 9/15/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 870 Att. 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

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] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.506.7114 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN K. CLARKE
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

A/73501586.1/2021039-0000324170

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
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

Pending before this Court is the Administrative Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Documents in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion No. 1 to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen K. Clarke ("Defendants' Motion to Seal") (Dkt. No. 857) filed by SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). Through Defendants' Motion to Seal and Plaintiffs' Response in Support of Defendants' Motion to Seal ("Plaintiffs' Response") (Dkt. No. 870), the Parties request an Order sealing portions of the Declaration of Stephen K. Clarke in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion No. 1 to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen K. Clarke ("Clarke Declaration") at paragraph 32, and figures 1 and 4. 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). In particular, when the request for sealing concerns discovery documents attached to a nondispositive 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)). In compliance with this Court's Standing Order Involving Sealed or Confidential Documents, Rule 26(c) and Civil Local Rule 79-5, Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Jennifer Gloss (the "Gloss Declaration") in support of Defendants' Motion to Seal on September 15, 2010. Through the Gloss Declaration and Plaintiffs' Response, Plaintiffs provide evidence of good cause sufficient for this Court to permit filing portions of the requested document under seal. The Gloss Declaration establishes both that Oracle has considered and treated the information contained in the document 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 has been narrowly tailored.
A/73501586.1/2021039-0000324170

Having considered Defendants' Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs' Response in Support, 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

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

and the Gloss Declaration in Support, and GOOD CAUSE having been shown: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the unredacted versions of the Clarke Declaration at paragraph 32, and figures 1 and 4. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

A/73501586.1/2021039-0000324170

3

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL