Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 355

ORDER RE: PENDING EX PARTE APPLICATIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 3:10-cv-02066 SI
ORDER RE: PENDING EX PARTE
APPLICATIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

v.
SIDENSE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Currently before the Court are six ex parte applications to file under seal documents that relate

18

to the pending motions for sanctions and for attorneys’ fees and costs. Docket Nos. 336, 338, 344, 347,

19

350, and 352. The parties’ justification for these requests is only that each of the documents sought to

20
21

be filed under seal has been previously designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE

22

ATTORNEYS-EYES ONLY,” pursuant to the operative, stipulated protective order. Id.; see also

23

Docket No. 102 (protective order).

24
25

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) states that: “[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.”

26
27
28

Unless an application to file documents under seal is supported by a declaration that establishes
“sufficiently compelling reasons” to seal each of the documents, or portions thereof, the moving party

1
2

will have failed to rebut the “strong presumption of access” that accompanies judicial records. In re
Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig. v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 686 F.3d

3
1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted); see also Civil Local Rule 79-5.
4
5

Upon preliminary review of the parties’ papers, the Court is inclined to deny all of the parties’

6

pending ex parte applications to file under seal. Unless the party that produced or originally designated

7

as confidential each of the documents now sought to be filed under seal, or the specifically-delineated

8

portions thereof, sets forth “sufficiently compelling reasons” to rebut the “strong presumption of access”

9
that accompanies judicial records, on or before November 20, 2012, the Court will adhere to this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

tentative order. Docket Nos. 336, 338, 344, 347, 350, and 352.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 14, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2