Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc.

Filing 148

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 116 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 121 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 126 Stipulation; granting 132 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 140 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEGAN LLC, Case No. 14-cv-01315-VC Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL 9 10 ZYNGA INC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 116, 121, 126, 132, and 140 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Zynga's administrative motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Segan's motion 13 to amend (Dkt. No. 121), and Segan's administrative motion to seal its amended infringement 14 contentions (Dkt. No. 132) are granted. The parties established good cause for sealing the material 15 and abided by the local rules. 16 Segan's administrative motion to seal in connection with its motion to amend (Dkt. No. 17 116) is denied because of failure to comply with Local Rule 79-5(e). Segan's corrected 18 administrative motion to seal in connection with its reply brief to the motion to amend (Dkt. No. 19 140) is denied because of failure to comply with Local Rule 79-5(e) and because the motion is not 20 narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material. The parties have seven days from the date of 21 this Order to refile these motions in accordance with the local rules. Otherwise, the material will 22 be made public. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Segan's initial administrative motion to seal in connection with its reply brief (Dkt. No. 126) is terminated as moot because it is superseded by Docket No. 140. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2015 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

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?