Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 141

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore Denying 138 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal.(kawlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2015) Modified on 6/29/2015 (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AYLUS NETWORKS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-04700-EMC (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(Dkt. No. 138)

12
13
Plaintiff Aylus Networks, Inc. filed an Administrative Motion to File Documents Under
14
15

Seal on June 11, 2015. (Dkt. No. 138.) Plaintiff seeks to seal those portions of the parties’ “Joint
Letter Brief Regarding Inadequate Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff claims

16
that the Joint Discovery Letter Brief contains material that Defendant Apple Inc. has designated as
17
18
19
20

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the court’s protective order issued on
May 8, 2014, Dkt. No. 46. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with several procedural requirements set forth under
Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1), which requires that a party’s administrative motion to seal be

21
accompanied by the following attachments: (a) A declaration establishing that the document
22
sought to be filed under seal, or portions, thereof, are sealable; (b) A proposed order that is
23
narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each document
24
or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed; (c) A redacted version of the document that is sought
25
26

to be filed under seal, which shall prominently display the notation “REDACTED VERSION OF
DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED”; (d) An unredacted version of the document sought

27
to be filed under seal, which must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of
28

1

the document that have been omitted from the redacted version, and prominently display the

2

notation “UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED.”
Here, Plaintiff filed its Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, attaching

3
4

only a document titled “Joint Letter Brief Regarding Inadequate Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony”, which

5

includes an unredacted letter brief in which certain portions of text are highlighted.1 (Dkt. No.

6

138.) Plaintiff’s filing is deficient for several reasons.
First, although Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) does not apply in this instance since

7
8

Plaintiff is seeking to file under seal a document designated as confidential by Defendant, Civil

9

Local Rule 79-5(e) nevertheless governs Plaintiff’s motion. Specifically, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)
provides that if Plaintiff is seeking to file under seal a document designated as confidential by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant pursuant to a protective order, Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the Administrative

12

Motion to File Under Seal must identify the document or portions thereof which contain the

13

designated confidential material and identify the party that has designated the material as

14

confidential. Here, Plaintiff’s motion lacks such a declaration, and the declaration submitted by

15

Defendant as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) does not satisfy Plaintiff’s obligation under

16

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Therefore, Plaintiff must submit a declaration that complies with Civil

17

Local Rule 79-5(e).
Second, Plaintiff’s proposed order fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B),

18
19

which requires that a proposed order be narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material, and lists

20

in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. Here, in addition to

21

the fact that Plaintiff filed its proposed order a day after filing its motion, the proposed order fails

22

to list in table format each portion of the document sought to be sealed. Accordingly, Plaintiff

23

must submit a proposed order that complies with the local rules.

24

Finally, Plaintiff failed to comply with Civil Local Rules 79-5(d)(1)(C) and 79-5(d)(1)(D),

25

since it did not include a redacted and unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under

26
1

27
28

The Court notes that the Joint Letter Brief was submitted in the “track changes” format in
Microsoft Word. Upon refiling, the parties should submit the Joint Letter Brief without the “track
changes” designation.
2

1

seal. Plaintiff should submit these documents with its motion, clearly displaying the notation

2

“REDACTED/UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE

3

SEALED.”

4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal is DENIED

5

without prejudice. Plaintiff shall correctly file the motion, including the appropriate attachments,

6

within four days of the date of this order.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3