Abstrax, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Filing 227

ORDER requiring Plaintiff Abstrax, Inc. to file a motion to seal 226 its opposition to Defendant's motion for a protective order by close of business Monday, June 6, 2011. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on June 2, 2011. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 NOT FOR CITATION 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 EUREKA DIVISION 6 7 8 United States District Court United States District Court For For the Northern DistrictCalifornia the Northern District of of California 11 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, 9 10 No. CV 09-5243 PJH (NJV) ABSTRAX, INC., v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. 12 (Docket No. 226) / 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The district court has referred the parties’ discovery motions and all future discovery matters to this Court for determination. Doc. No. 215. On May 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a redacted opposition to Defendant’s motion for a protective order, but did not file a corresponding motion to seal its opposition as required by Local Rule 79-5(c). Doc. No. 226. Plaintiff is ordered to file its motion to seal by close of business Monday, June 6, 2011. To the extent that the subject matter to be sealed in Plaintiff’s opposition was addressed in Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of its motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 220), the parties are instructed to clearly identify the overlap. The parties are instructed to carefully review the Local Rules and General Order 62 regarding the sealing of documents. 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2011 NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge

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?