Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 338

FILED IN ERROR - DISREGARD - ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 276) by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 276 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) Modified on 9/26/2013 (whalc1, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13 NETWORK PROTECTION SCIENCES,
LLC,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
FORTINET, INC.,
17
Defendant.
18

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-01106-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING-INPART MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
(DKT. NO. 276)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04880.52079/5487706.1

Case No. 3:12-CV-01106-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

1

On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff Network Protection Sciences (NPS) filed an administrative

2 motion for leave to file documents under seal. Specifically, NPS seeks to file under seal Exhibits
3 1, 8, 9, 10, 18, 26, 27, and 28 to the Declaration of Jill F Kopeikin in Support of NPS’s Opposition
4 to Fortinet, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the Kopeikin Decl.); and portions of NPS’s
5 Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement; and the Declaration
6 of Angelos Keromytis in support of NPS’s Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for Summary
7 Judgment of Noninfringement.
8

On September 13, 2013, pursuant to the Court’s ORDER RE SEALING MOTION (DKT.

9 NO. 243) and Civil L.R. 79-5(d), Defendant Fortinet filed a declaration in partial support of NPS’s
10 administrative motion, requesting that “source code references” and “two technical memos (Dkt.
11 Nos. 240-3–4)” be filed under seal. As exhibits to its declaration, Fortinet filed redacted versions
12 of Exhibits 1, 8, 9, 10, 18, and 28 to the Declaration of Jill F Kopeikin in Support of NPS’s
13 Opposition to Fortinet, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the Kopeikin Decl.); and portions
14 of NPSs Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement; and the
15 Declaration of Angelos Keromytis in support of NPS’s Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for
16 Summary Judgment of Noninfringement. Fortinet stated that Exhibits 26 and 27 to the Kopeiken
17 Decl. do not need to be maintained under seal.
18

After reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause exists to

19 seal the requested Exhibits 1, 8, 9, 10, 18, and 28 to the Kopeikin Decl.; and portions of NPS’s
20 Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement; and the Declaration
21 of Angelos Keromytis in support of NPS’s Opposition to Fortinet’s Motion for Summary
22 Judgment of Noninfringement. Plaintiff is directed to electronically file the documents under seal
23 pursuant to General Order 62. Information about electronically filing documents under seal may
24 be found on the Court’s website (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov) as well as the ECF website for
25 this Court (http://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/index.html).
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: September 25, 2013

28
04880.52079/5487706.1

________________________________
William Alsup
United States District Judge

Case No. 3:12-CV-01106-WHA
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL