Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc. v. Emerging Markets Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 323

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 321 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Without Prejudice.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

12
Plaintiff,
13

No. C-09-02180 SBA (DMR)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE
SECOND JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER
UNDER SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
14
15
16
17

E M E R G I N G
M A R K E T S
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

18
The court is in receipt of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
19
and Third-Party Defendant Comtech EF Data’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Administrative Relief for
20
permission to file a joint discovery letter dated March 2, 2012 under seal in its entirety. [Docket No.
21
321.] On March 2, 2012, the court entered an Order denying a similar request by Defendants
22
ViaSat, Inc. and Teledyne Paradise Datacom, LLC’s for permission to file a joint discovery letter
23
dated February 24, 2012 under seal in its entirety. [Docket No. 320.] The court denied Defendants’
24
request on the grounds that the request to seal the documents in their entirety was overly broad, and
25
that Defendants had failed to establish that the contents of the letter and its attachments are
26
“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” N.D.
27
Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (“[a] sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the
28

1

document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

2

protection under the law . . . [t]he request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

3

material.”) The court granted Defendants leave to re-file a new request to file the joint letter and its

4

attachments under seal that is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material” and

5

complies with the Local Rules.

6

The court has reviewed the documents Plaintiffs now seek to file under seal and, as with

7

Defendants’ earlier request, finds that the request to seal the documents in their entirety is overly

8

broad. The court’s instruction in its March 2, 2012 Order was clear: any request to file any material

9

under seal must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” N.D. Civ. L.R. 795(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief is DENIED

11

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs are granted leave to re-file a new request to file the joint letter

12

and its attachments under seal that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5(c) by no later than March

13

9, 2012. All parties are instructed that in filing new requests to file the joint letters and their

14

attachments under seal, they must redact the letters so that only properly sealable material is

15

redacted and support their redactions with a “declaration establishing that [the redacted portions] of

16

the document [are] sealable.” N.D. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Any future requests to file a document or

17

portion of a document under seal must comply with these instructions or will be denied with

18

prejudice.

Dated: March 7, 2012

onn
Judge D

RT

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

ER

H

24
25
26
27
28

2

u

a M. Ry

NO

23

N

FO

22

I

LI

21

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

R NIA

S
IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

19

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C