Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. v. SRI International, Inc.

Filing 99

ORDER to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 27, 2014. (jswlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

No. C 12-03231 JSW
CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SHOULD
NOT BE FILED IN THE PUBLIC
RECORD

v.
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.

/

14
15

On January 20, 2014, defendant SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) filed an administrative

16

motion pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), in which it seeks to file its proposed

17

amended infringement contentions because it references materials designated confidential by

18

plaintiff Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. (“Check Point”). Pursuant to Rule 79-5(e), when

19

such a request is made, within four days thereafter, “the Designating Party must file a declaration as

20

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

21

Check Point’s were due to be filed over two months ago, but have not yet been filed.

22

Accordingly, by no later than March 3, 2013, Check Point is HEREBY ORDERED to file a

23

declaration establishing cause for sealing any portion of the proposed amended infringement

24

contentions. If Check Point fails to comply with this Order, the Court shall deny SRI’s motion and

25

shall order that the document be filed in the public record. The Court notes that this is the last time

26

it will remind any party to this case of their obligations under Local Rule 79-5(e). Failure to file the

27

requisite declaration within the required time period will automatically result in the Court denying a

28

motion to seal and ordering the exhibits filed in the public record.

Moreover, as a public forum, the Court will only entertain requests to seal that establish good

2

cause and are narrowly tailored to seal only the particular information that is genuinely privileged or

3

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise has a compelling need for confidentiality. Documents may

4

not be filed under seal pursuant to blanket protective orders covering multiple documents. In

5

addition, counsel should not attempt to seal entire pleadings or declarations without a particularized

6

showing explaining why the request could not be more narrowly tailored. Any order granting a

7

request to seal shall direct the sealing of only those documents, pages, or if practicable, those

8

portions of documents or pages that contain the information requiring confidentiality. All other

9

portions of such documents shall remain in the public file. Civil L.R. 79-5(b) & cmt. If Check Point

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

files a declaration to establish cause for filing under seal, it shall take care to delineate which specific

11

portions of the proposed amended infringement contentions it is requesting to have filed under seal.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: February 27, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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