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)

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