Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 272

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL (Dkt. Nos. 245 & 254). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/25/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013)

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

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No.: 11-5310 EMC (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL (Dkt. Nos. 245 &
254)

15
16
17

ACRONIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

On September 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying part

20

the parties’ administrative motions to seal filings related to Defendants Acronis Corporation,

21

et al., (collectively “Acronis”) Motion to Amend/Correct Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. Nos.

22

245 & 254). (Dkt. No. 259.) The Court hereby addresses certain outstanding issues with

23

respect to the motions to seal.

24

1. Although Acronis initially sought to file under seal an entire deposition transcript (Dkt.

25

No. 254-5, Exhibit B) at the request of Plaintiff Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”),

26

Symantec has since withdrawn this request and instead seeks to file selected portions

27

of the transcript under seal. Symantec has shown good cause for its request for sealing

28

1

the limited portions of the transcript and the Court GRANTS the request to file Docket

2

No. 264-1 under seal.

3

2. Symantec has likewise shown good cause for filing a narrowly tailored redacted

4

version of what was previously filed as Exhibit E to the Declaration of Kate Cassidy in

5

support of Symantec’s Opposition to Acronis’s Motion (Dkt. No. 254-8).

6

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the request to file Docket No. 264-2 under seal.

7

3. The Court previously denied Symantec’s request to file Exhibit A to the Declaration of

8

Kate Cassidy in support of Symantec’s Opposition to Acronis’s Motion (Dkt. No. 254-

9

4) under seal because the one-line email was predominately in Russian and no

Northern District of California

translation was provided. Symantec has since filed a certification stating that no

11
United States District Court

10

translation could be provided because the document is unreadable in Russian. (Dkt.

12

No. 262-1.) As a week has passed with no response from Acronis, the Court hereby

13

Orders that Symantec file Exhibit A on the public docket as there is no good cause for

14

sealing an unreadable document.

15

4. Symantec has failed to comply with the portions of the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 259)

16

which granted the motion to seal with respect to Exhibits D, K, and L to the

17

Declaration of Kate Cassidy in support of Symantec’s Opposition to Acronis’s Motion

18

(Dkt. Nos. 254-7, 254-10, 254-11) and ordered these documents to be electronically

19

filed under seal within three days. To date, the documents have not been electronically

20

filed, and are thus, not part of the record. Symantec shall electronically file these

21

documents under seal by the close of business September 26, 2013 or the Court will

22

have to amend its Order denying Acronis’s motion to amend to eliminate any reliance

23

on this evidence.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

2