Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting 39 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOBSCIENCE, INC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 13-04519 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS

CVPARTNERS INC., a California
corporation, SKIPAN LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, SKIPAN SAAS
LLC, d.b.a. TALENT ROVER, a Delaware
limited liability
company, BRANDON METCALF, an
individual, KENT GRAY, an individual, and
DOES 1–100,

17
Defendants.
18

/

19
The “stipulated protective order for litigation involving patents, highly sensitive
20
confidential information and/or trade secrets” (Dkt. No. 39) submitted by the parties is hereby
21
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s
22
strict caution against sealing orders (as set out below):
23
1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

24
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
25
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
26
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
27
is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating
28
all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

1

2.

In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

2

Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil

3

Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly

4

tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include

5

all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein

6

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

7

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

8

allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

9

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

or declaration. Chambers copies of any filings that are more than two-inches

12

thick shall include exhibit tabs. Although chambers copies should clearly

13

designate which portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential

14

materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of materials without

15

special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded.

16

4.

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

17

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”

18

are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling

19

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.

20

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be

21

unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

22

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant

23

first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good

24

cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are

25

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

26

completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of

27

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling

28

nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom
2

1

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment

2

proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also

3

part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please

4

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

5

their entirety.

6
7
8
9

5.

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order.
6.

This order does not preclude any party from moving to

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.
The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

12

7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

13

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

14

termination of the action.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: February 25, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3