SanDisk Corporation v. IPValue Management Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 2 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 SAN DISK CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 13 Case No.: 13-cv-80271 RS (JSC) ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (Dkt. No. 2) v. 14 15 16 IP VALUE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. 17 18 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 19 20 portions of its also pending Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 1) and certain exhibits submitted 21 therewith. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff seeks to file the documents under seal because Defendant 22 designated the documents as highly confidential pursuant to the stipulated protective order 23 governing this action. The motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part as set forth 24 below. 25 In accordance with Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Defendant, as the party asserting that the 26 documents are confidential, submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal. 27 (Dkt. No. 6.) A request for sealing must be “narrowly tailored” and establish that the 28 “document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as trade secret or otherwise entitled 1 to protection under the law.” L. R. 79-5(b). Defendant contends that six of the exhibits 2 submitted with the motion to compel and portions of the motion to compel contain highly 3 confidential information, and thus, should be filed under seal. The Court finds that Defendant 4 has established good cause for sealing Exhibits A, B, C and F. The motion is therefore 5 granted with respect to these exhibits. 6 However, the Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits D and E and material. Exhibit D is Defendant’s privilege log—a privilege log should not contain 9 confidential information as a privilege log by its very purpose seeks to shield confidential 10 information from disclosure and only contains that information which is necessary to show 11 Northern District of California portions of the motion to compel is not narrowly tailored to only seek sealing of protectable 8 United States District Court 7 that the underlying documents are privileged. Exhibit E, a letter from Defendant’s counsel to 12 Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the privilege log which consists of legal arguments regarding 13 why the material in the privilege log is confidential, is likewise not properly sealable. 14 Similarly, the portions of the motion to compel referring to either of these exhibits is not 15 subject to sealing. 16 Accordingly, the administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 17 IN PART. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff shall file a revised redacted version of its motion to 18 compel and unredacted versions of Exhibits D and E in accordance with Rule 79-5(f) within 19 seven days. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 13, 2013 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?