Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC

Filing 254

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

SAN DISK CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No.: 11-5243 RS (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Dkt. No. 246)

15
16

ROUND ROCK RESEARCH LLC,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

20

portions of its also pending Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 247) and certain exhibits submitted

21

therewith. (Dkt. No. 246.) Plaintiff seeks to file the documents under seal because Defendant

22

designated the documents as highly confidential pursuant to the stipulated protective order

23

governing this action. The motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part as set forth

24

below.

25

In accordance with Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Defendant, as the party asserting that the

26

documents are confidential, submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal.

27

(Dkt. No. 249.) A request for sealing must be “narrowly tailored” and establish that the

28

“document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as trade secret or otherwise entitled

1

to protection under the law.” L. R. 79-5(b). Defendant contends that 19 of the exhibits

2

submitted with the motion to compel and portions of the motion to compel contain highly

3

confidential information, and thus, should be filed under seal. The Court finds that Defendant

4

has established good cause for sealing Exhibits 1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 21.

5

The motion is therefore granted with respect to these exhibits.

6

Defendant’s request to seal the remaining exhibits and portions of the motion to

7

compel is not narrowly tailored to only seek sealing of protectable material. For example,

8

Defendant has not shown good cause to seal references to “business plan,” “profit and loss

9

statements,” or “P&L Projections” in the motion to compel. The contents of these documents

Northern District of California

may contain confidential information, but the fact that they exist is not confidential. With

11
United States District Court

10

respect to the documents themselves, although portions of the deposition of Mr. deBlasi

12

(Exhibit 3) may be confidential, the fact that Round Rock is a Delaware Corporation, that Mr.

13

deBlasi is the CEO, and the identity of the other executives is not confidential information.

14

Likewise, portions of the deposition of Mr. Demarais (Exhibit 5) may be confidential, but

15

Plaintiff has not established good cause for sealing information regarding his position as

16

Chairman of the Board with Round Rock or similar information. With respect to the emails

17

(Exhibits 7, 8 & 9), although portions of the emails may be confidential, the header and

18

scheduling or logistical information within the emails is not. The privilege logs (Exhibits 10,

19

17 & 18) should not contain confidential information as a privilege log by its very purpose

20

seeks to shield confidential information from disclosure and only contains that information

21

which is necessary to show that the underlying documents are privileged.

22

Accordingly, the administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

23

IN PART. Within 7 days of this Order, Defendant may refile a declaration in accordance

24

with Rule 79-5 that is narrowly tailored to only seek sealing of protectable material.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

2