TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 371

AMENDED 347 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 316 TRANSPERFECTS MOTION TO SEAL; DENYING 314 MOTIONPOINTS MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/25/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.,
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INT’L,
INC., and TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC.,

6

AMENDED ORDER
GRANTING IN PART
TRANSPERFECT’S
MOTION TO SEAL;
DENYING
MOTIONPOINT’S
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 314 &
316)

Plaintiffs,

7

v.

8

MOTIONPOINT CORP.,

9

Defendant.
________________________________/

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 10-2590 CW

11

Plaintiffs TransPerfect Global, Inc., TransPerfect

12

Translations International, Inc., and Translations.com, Inc.

13

(collectively, TransPerfect) move to seal portions of their

14

response to Defendant MotionPoint Corporation’s motions in limine

15

and several of its supporting exhibits.

16

portions of its response to TransPerfect’s motions in limine, its

17

response to TransPerfect’s brief on disputed issues of law, and

18

several supporting exhibits.

19

submissions, the Court grants TransPerfect’s motion to seal in

20

part and denies it in part and denies MotionPoint’s motion to

21

seal.

22

I.

23

MotionPoint moves to seal

After reviewing the parties’

TransPerfect’s Motion to Seal
TransPerfect seeks to seal various excerpts from pages 20

24

through 24 of its response to MotionPoint’s motions in limine as

25

well as Exhibits 23-26 and 28 to L. Okey Onyejekwe’s declaration

26

in support thereof.

27

contain information about TransPerfect’s proprietary technology

28

and sensitive financial information.

It contends that these excerpts and exhibits

After reviewing these

1

documents the Court finds that TransPerfect has provided good

2

cause for sealing the excerpts on pages 20, 22, and 23 (lines 1-3

3

only) of its response as well as Exhibits 23-26 to Onkejekwe’s

4

declaration.

5

for sealing the excerpts on pages 23 (lines 25-28) and 24 (lines

6

1-3) and Exhibit 28 to Onkejekwe’s declaration.

7

not discuss -- or even mention -- any sensitive information about

8

TransPerfect’s finances and, thus, may not be sealed.

9

TransPerfect has not, however, provided good cause

These excerpts do

In addition to the documents discussed above, TransPerfect

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

seeks to seal various excerpts and exhibits that MotionPoint has

11

designated confidential.

12

exhibits, the Court finds that none of them is sealable.

13

Local Rule 79-5(a) only permits information to be sealed if it is

14

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled

15

to protection under the law.”

16

excerpts of TransPerfect’s brief merely because they contain

17

allegations about MotionPoint employees.

18

excerpts on pages 5-14 of TransPerfect’s response brief and

19

Exhibits 7-10, 13, and 29-31 to Onkejekwe’s declaration may not be

20

sealed.

21

II.

22

After reviewing these excerpts and
Civil

MotionPoint cannot seal exhibits or

Accordingly, the

MotionPoint’s Motion to Seal
MotionPoint moves to seal (1) several excerpts from its

23

response to TransPerfect’s motions in limine; (2) over twenty

24

exhibits to Meghan Bordonaro’s declaration supporting that

25

response; and (3) its response to TransPerfect’s brief on disputed

26

issues of law.

27

amount of non-sealable information, including descriptions of the

28

patents-in-suit and excerpts of reports that the Court has

These excerpts and exhibits contain a significant

2

1

previously refused to seal.1

2

MotionPoint offered prospective clients several years ago,

3

TransPerfect’s efforts to purchase MotionPoint several years ago,

4

and MotionPoint’s efforts to compete with TransPerfect for clients

5

several years ago.

6

how the disclosure of any of this information would harm its

7

business today.

8

denied.

The documents also discuss discounts

MotionPoint has not explained in any detail

Accordingly, MotionPoint’s motion to seal is

CONCLUSION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

For the reasons set forth above, TransPerfect’s motion to

11

seal (Docket No. 316) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

12

Within two days of this order, TransPerfect shall file Exhibit 28

13

to Onkejekwe’s declaration in the public record.

14

shall publicly file its response to MotionPoint’s motions in

15

limine after redacting the information outlined above.

16

In addition, it

MotionPoint’s motion to seal (Docket No. 314) is DENIED.

17

Within two days of this order, MotionPoint shall publicly file

18

every previously sealed exhibit to Bordonaro’s declaration.

19

shall also publicly file unredacted versions of its response to

20

TransPerfect’s motions in limine and its response to

21

TransPerfect’s brief on disputed issues of law.

22

It

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: June 25, 2013
June 19, 2013

25

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
1

27
28

Some of these excerpts and exhibits were designated confidential
by TransPerfect rather than MotionPoint. However, TransPerfect failed
to file a declaration supporting its confidential designation of this
information as it was required to do under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

3