Integral Development Corp v. Tolat

Filing 67

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING 59 60 Plaintiff's Administrative Motions to File Portions of Documents Under Seal and DENYING AS MOOT 62 Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/22/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 VIRAL TOLAT, 15 16 17 Defendant. _____________________________________/ No. C 12-06575 JSW (LB) AMENDED1 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE PORTIONS OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF No. 59, 60, 62] On April 11, 2013, the parties filed redacted versions of two joint discovery letters briefs 18 describing two discovery disputes. Joint Discovery Letter Brief No. 1, ECF No. 55; Joint Discovery 19 Letter Brief No. 2, ECF No. 56. Plaintiff also filed redacted versions of two declarations in support 20 of its positions in these two joint discovery letter briefs. Sandhu Declaration, ECF No. 57; Berryhill 21 Declaration, ECF No. 58. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two administrative motions requesting 22 permission to file portions of the two joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill 23 Declarations under seal. First Administrative Motion, ECF No. 59; Second Administrative Motion, 24 ECF No. 60. On April 15, 2013, the undersigned’s chambers received unredacted copies of the two 25 joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill Declarations. These unredacted copies, 26 however, did not highlight the portions of the letters and declarations that Plaintiff seeks to file 27 28 1 The court issues this amended order to provide the correct case number in the caption and in the footer. C 12-06575 JSW (LB) ORDER 1 under seal. Upon being ordered to do so, Plaintiff thereafter submitted new, unredacted versions of 2 the two joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill Declarations with the portions that 3 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal highlighted in yellow. Then, on April 16, 2013, Defendant filed his 4 own administrative motion requesting that several of the same documents be filed under seal. 5 Defendant’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 62. 6 Good cause shown, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s administrative motions. Plaintiff’s proposed 7 orders, however, included only the portions of the documents it designated as confidential and did 8 not, for some reason, include the portions of the documents Defendant designated as confidential. 9 Accordingly, the court specifies that the following shall be filed under seal: 10 1. April 11, 2013, on pages 1, 2, 4, 5; 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 The highlighted portions of the Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, filed 2. Paragraphs 2-5 and 8 to the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu, filed April 11, 2013; 13 3. Paragraphs 4-5 to the Declaration of Jon Berryhill, filed April 11, 2013; 14 4. The highlighted portions of Exhibit 1 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery 15 Disputes, which are excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Viral Tolat, March 7, 2012, pages 16 429:17-435:13; 17 5. 18 19 Deposition Transcript of Arthur Patterson, March 15, 2013; 6. 20 21 7. 8. 28 Exhibit 7 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of Integral Production Documents that are marked “confidential”; 9. 26 27 The highlighted portions of Exhibit 6 Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is a Draft of the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu on pages 2-4; 24 25 The highlighted portions of Exhibit 5 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is a March 11, 2012 Proposed Letter To Judge Beeler, on page 2; 22 23 Exhibit 3 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of Exhibit 8 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are portions of a March 20, 2013 Letter from Mr. Russo to Mr. Eckhaus; 10. Portions of Exhibit 4 to the Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is a March 20, 2013 Letter from Mr. Russo to Mr. Eckhaus; C 12-06575 JSW (LB) ORDER 2 1 11. 2 3 Deposition Transcript of Arthur Patterson, March 15, 2013; 12. 4 5 6 7 Exhibit 5 to Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes which are excerpts of the Portions of Exhibit 6 Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is a Draft of the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu, on pages 2-4; and 13. Exhibit 7 to Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of Integral Production Documents that are marked “confidential.” In light of the court granting Plaintiff’s administrative motions, Defendant’s administrative 8 motion, which asks the undersigned to allow a subset of the above-listed documents to be filed under 9 seal, is DENIED AS MOOT. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 12-06575 JSW (LB) ORDER 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?