Roth v. Loos & Company, Inc. et al

Filing 88

AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STEVEN ROTH, Plaintiff, v LOOS & COMPANY, INC and SEISMIC SOLUTIONS, INC, Defendants. / No C 08-02156 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 30, 2009, plaintiff Steven Roth moved the court to seal his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc #71. Plaintiff's motion, required by stipulated protective

order (Doc #30), was based on his understanding that defendants had designated or otherwise indicated that certain portions of his motion and documents used in support of his motion were confidential. As required by LR 79-5(d), defendants filed a declaration (Doc #82) in support of sealing Exhibits D and E attached to the declaration of H Michael Brucker (Doc ##84-85). Defendants

previously designated Exhibits D and E as attorney's eyes only under the stipulated protective order because the documents contain

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

competitively sensitive information, including pricing, customer lists and sales volume. Doc #82.

At this time, disclosures of this information may arguably result in competitive harm to the defendants. Accordingly, the motion for a sealing order is GRANTED. Exhibits D

and E to the Brucker declaration shall be filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2