Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 266

ORDER PARTIALLY DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MATERIALS UNDER SEAL re 244 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 238 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants Intuit Inc. and Mint Software Inc.'s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal filed by Mint Software Inc, Intuit. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 14, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
INNOSPAN CORP.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 10-04422 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

14

INTUIT INC., MINT SOFTWARE INC.,
SHASTA VENTURES GP, LLC, and
DOES 1–20,

15

ORDER PARTIALLY DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MATERIALS UNDER SEAL

Defendants.
/

16
17

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
/

18
19

Defendants Intuit Inc. and Mint Software Inc. move for leave to file under seal portions of

20

the materials supporting their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 238). A previous order

21

partially granted the motion as to items designated as confidential by defendants (Dkt. No. 244).

22

The remainder of the motion, which concerns materials designated as confidential by plaintiff

23

Innospan Corp., is DENIED.

24

The order approving the stipulated protective order stated: “Designation of materials as

25

‘confidential’ must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there is good cause. A

26

pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating all or most materials on a

27

wholesale basis.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 1). Plaintiff Innospan designated as confidential portions of

28

nine paragraphs of the Cole declaration and 46 entire exhibits. The sealing motion will be denied

1

as to these items. First, plaintiff failed to support its designation with a supporting declaration as

2

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Second, the request is not narrowly drawn to include only

3

sealable material.

4

Plaintiff had two opportunity to cure these defects. When plaintiff failed to file a

5

declaration within the time allowed by the local rules, plaintiff was given a second chance to

6

submit a more narrowly drawn request to seal portions of these items, along with a supporting

7

declaration (Dkt. No. 244). The deadline was noon on November 10, 2011. No filing has been

8

made. The sealing motion is therefore DENIED as to those items designated as confidential by

9

plaintiff. Defendants may file those documents in the public record.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: November 14, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2