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)

Download PDF
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

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?