Straight Path IP Group v. BlackBerry Limited et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL (DKT. NOS. 5, 7). re 5 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal To Place Certain Exhibits Under Seal Movant Straight Path's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena t o Netflix, Inc. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(B) filed by Straight Path IP Group, 7 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Certain Exhibits Under Seal Re Straight Path's Opposition to Netflix's Motion To Quash Supboena Ad Testificandum filed by Straight Path IP Group. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 10, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
STRAIGHT PATH GROUP, INC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
BLACKBERRY LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16
17
18
19

No. C 14-80150 WHA

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER
SEAL (DKT. NOS. 5, 7).

NETFLIX, INC.
Third Party.
/
On May 23, Netflix, Inc. filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena (Dkt. No. 1).

20

On June 3, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. filed an opposition, a motion to compel, and two sealing

21

motions (Dkt. No. 5–8). From its opposition, Straight Path sought to seal Exhibits K, L, M, O,

22

T, U, W, and X to the Declaration of Attorney Michael Newman and Exhibits B, C, D, E, and G

23

to the Declaration of Stephen Cole (Dkt. No. 7). From its motion, Straight Path sought to seal

24

Exhibits K, L, M, O, T, U, W, and X to the Declaration of Attorney Michael Newman and

25

Exhibits B, C, D, E, and G to the Declaration of Stephen Cole (Dkt. No. 5). Straight Path then

26

re-filed “corrected” papers (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 17).

27
28

Straight Path’s sealing submissions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). First,
Straight Path’s descriptions of Exhibits K, L, M, O, T, U, W, and X to the Declaration of
Attorney Michael Newman in its sealing motion do not match up with the exhibits filed. For

1

example, Straight Path represents that Exhibit K is “relevant portions of AmTRAN’s Responses

2

to Straight Path’s First Set of Interrogatories.” Exhibit K as filed, however, is an email chain

3

between Attorneys Michael Newman and James Coughlan (Dkt. No. 17-12, see also Dkt. Nos.

4

15-12, 14-12, 13-12). The undersigned judge is not in receipt of a courtesy copy of Exhibit K as

5

described in the sealing motion.

6

Second, Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D) states that an unredacted version of the document

7

sought to be filed under seal should be e-filed. Chamber’s copies should be provided as well.

8

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2). This was not done. Moreover, Straight Path’s opposition and

9

motion to compel papers collectively number more than 1,400 pages. Chamber’s copies should

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

include exhibit tabs.
Third, parties and non-parties should make a good-faith effort to limit sealing requests to
only narrowly-tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists.
Fourth, it appears that Straight Path seeks to seal exhibits designated as confidential by

14

non-parties. Straight Path should make sure these exhibits are promptly provided to those

15

relevant non-parties so that appropriate supporting declarations can be timely filed. See Civil

16

Local Rule 79-5(e).

17
18

Accordingly, Straight Path’s sealing motions are DENIED (Dkt. Nos. 5, 7).
By NOON ON JUNE 16, Straight Path shall file new sealing motions that comply with the rules.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: June 10, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2