LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. et al v. Trademark Engine LLC et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS; EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. Plaintiffs are directed to file in the public record, no later than seven days from the date of this order, either: (1) an opposition to defendants' sanctions motion, as well as any evidence in support thereof; or (2) a renewed administrative motion to file under seal. T he deadline for defendants to file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for sanctions is extended; defendants' reply shall be filed no later than seven days following the date on which plaintiffs serve defendants with their opposition. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 24, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE
P.C., et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
TRADEMARK ENGINE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

12

Case No. 17-cv-07303-MMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;
DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS;
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY TO
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 79

13
14

Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs'

15

Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Related Exhibits," filed April 16,

16

2018. Defendants have filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in

17

support of and in opposition to the administrative motion, the Court rules as follows.

18

Under the Local Rules of this District, a party who seeks leave to file under seal a

19

document or portions thereof must establish the material sought to be filed under seal is

20

"privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under law,"

21

and any such request "must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

22

material." See Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

23

Here, plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal the entirety of their "Opposition to

24

Defendants' Trademark Engine LLC and Travis Crabtree's Motion for Sanctions," as well

25

as the entirety of five declarations and eight exhibits submitted in support of the

26

opposition. Plaintiffs contend said filings should be filed under seal "to protect the safety

27

and security of the certain individuals described in the unredacted versions of the

28

Opposition" (see Pls.' Admin. Mot. at 2:6-9), an argument that, at best, would only apply

1

to certain portions of the plaintiffs' submissions.

2

Accordingly, plaintiffs' administrative motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice,

3

and plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than seven days

4

from the date of this order, either: (1) an opposition to defendants' sanctions motion, as

5

well as any evidence in support thereof; or (2) a renewed administrative motion to file

6

under seal, in conformity with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1), and in which plaintiffs seek

7

leave to file under seal only those portions of their opposition, declarations and/or exhibits

8

plaintiffs contend are confidential or otherwise entitled to protection under law.

9

Lastly, the deadline for defendants to file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion for sanctions is hereby EXTENDED; defendants' reply shall be filed no later than

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seven days following the date on which plaintiffs serve defendants with their opposition.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: April 24, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2