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

Filing 331

ORDER re 324 Request to File Joint Discovery Letter Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/12/2012. (dmrlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

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 REGARDING REQUEST TO
FILE JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER
UNDER SEAL [DOCKET NO. 324]

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 Defendants ViaSat, Inc. and Teledyne Paradise Datacom, LLC’s
19
renewed Motion for Administrative Relief for permission to file portions of a joint discovery letter
20
dated February 24, 2012 under seal, as well as an exhibit to the joint discovery letter in its entirety.
21
[Docket No. 324.]
22
By no later than 1:00 p.m. on March 13, 2012, Defendants ViaSat, Inc. and Teledyne
23
Paradise Datacom, LLC and/or Plaintiff Applied Signal Technology, Inc. shall e-file a letter
24
explaining why Exhibit A to the joint discovery letter, a privilege log, should be sealed from the
25
public record in its entirety. Specifically, the letter shall articulate exactly what information
26
27
28

1

contained in the privilege log is “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

2

protection under the law.”1 N.D. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Such letter shall not exceed one page.

7

NO

DONNA M. RYU
M. Ryu
United States Donna Judge
e Magistrate
dg

RT

10
11
For the Northern District of California

ER

H

9

Ju

LI

8

United States District Court

I

R NIA

Dated: March 12, 2012

A

6

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

FO

5

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

4

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

3

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The court notes that simply designating information as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not create an entitlement to file confidential information under
seal, as provided by the terms of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. See Docket No. 212 at 1
(stating that “Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the
standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under
seal.”)

2