eDirect Publishing Inc v. LiveCareer Ltd et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEALING ORDER by Hon. William Alsup denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
eDIRECT PUBLISHING, INC.,

12
13
14

v.
LIVECAREER, LTD. and NORTH
AMERICA LIVECAREER, INC.

17
18
19

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
SEALING ORDER

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 14-80125 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

INDIVIDUAL SOFTWARE, INC.
Third-Party.
/
In this miscellaneous action, on May 2, defendants filed an administrative motion for

20

leave to file under seal exhibits 9, 16, and 17 in support of their discovery motion. The caption

21

stated the sealing motion was before the Northern District of California so this district’s local

22

rules would apply. The sealing motion (and discovery motion) were served on third-party

23

Individual Software, Inc. the same day (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4).

24

Our district’s local rules state that supporting declarations must be filed within four days

25

of the filing of the sealing motion. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). The deadline to file a

26

supporting declaration was May 6, 2014. No supporting declaration was timely filed.

27
28

1

A May 13 order sua sponte extended the deadline to file a supporting declaration to noon

2

on May 16 so that Individual Software could fix their mistake (Dkt. No. 14). No supporting

3

declaration was timely filed.

4
5
6
7
8
9

On May 19, counsel for Individual Software filed the opposition to the discovery motion.
No supporting declaration was filed at that time.
A May 20 order denied the sealing motion because no supporting declaration was timely
filed (Dkt. No. 20).
On May 21, counsel for Individual Software filed a “request for reconsideration of order
denying motion to seal exhibits 16 and 17 of Brandwajn Declaration” (Dkt. No. 21). This
request is procedurally improper. Local Rule 7-9(a) requires parties to notice and file a motion

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The motion for leave to file a motion for

12

reconsideration must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of

13

three limited reasons for bringing the motion. See Local Rule 7-9(b)(1–3). None of those

14

reasons apply here. There is no material difference in fact or law; there is no emergence of new

15

material facts or a change in law; and there is no manifest failure to consider material facts or

16

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before the order.

17

Individual Software’s request for reconsideration states that “counsel regretfully and

18

inadvertently failed to properly calendar the deadline for filing the declaration” (Br. 2, Goldman

19

Decl. ¶ 8). Counsel then states that “once the mistake was discovered, Once [sic] that issue was

20

worked out, the deadlines were appropriately docketed . . . [but] the four-day time period . . . had

21

passed . . . . As a result, I failed to timely submit the required declaration” (ibid.).

22

Exhibits 16 and 17 are license agreements between Individual Software and eDirect

23

Publishing, Inc. Individual Software’s tardy attorney declaration states that exhibits 16 and 17

24

contain “confidential and proprietary business information of third-party” Individual Software.

25

Exhibit 9, however, “should not be sealed” (Goldman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5).

26

Individual Software is represented in this matter by Attorneys Berrie Goldman and

27

Kenneth Marshall from Bryan Cave LLP (a firm with more than 1,000 attorneys). No acceptable

28

excuse has been provided for missing these deadlines, even after the undersigned judge
2

1

sua sponte gave Individual Software a ten-day extension to fix their mistake. This tardy

2

declaration filed in support of a sealing motion filed on May 2 is far too late. The request for

3

reconsideration is DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: May 21, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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