Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 115


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket Nos. 110 and 111) v. HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC, erroneously sued as ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, Defendant. 9 10 No. C 10-2769 CW ________________________________/ AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS ________________________________/ 12 13 On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated 14 filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against Defendants 15 Anthony Kornrumpf, also known as Tony Kornrumpf, and Hoops 16 Enterprise LLC (Docket No. 108). 17 certain supporting documents, including a document referred to as 18 Exhibit E. 19 This motion was accompanied by On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to 20 remove the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and supporting 21 documents from the docket. 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction without Exhibit E and filed a 23 Motion to File Exhibit E under Seal. 24 it had been informed by Defendants that Exhibit E contained 25 proprietary information, the disclosure of which would be 26 detrimental to Defendants’ business. 27 28 Plaintiff simultaneously re-filed the Plaintiff represented that 1 On November 3, 2011, Defendants filed a declaration in 2 support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal. 3 that Exhibit E is an errata sheet of corrections to a deposition 4 transcript, certain entries of which were spelling corrections for 5 names of Defendants’ product suppliers. 6 that the names of their product suppliers and identifying 7 information are trade secrets that they have zealously guarded and 8 that are not generally known to the public or to their 9 competitors. Defendants represented Defendants represented Defendants also refer to a July 25, 2011 order, in United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 which the Magistrate Judge had found that this information 11 constituted trade secrets and was entitled to protection from 12 public disclosure, while ordering disclosure to Plaintiff. 13 Because the public interest favors filing all court documents 14 in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under 15 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. 16 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 17 be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 18 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 19 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 20 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 21 file each document under seal. 22 Pintos v. Pac. This cannot See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Defendants have provided good cause to seal Exhibit E. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to seal and to remove its 24 original Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from the docket are 25 GRANTED. 26 27 28 2 1 The clerk shall remove Docket No. 108 from the public record. 2 Within four days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file 3 Exhibit E under seal, in accordance with General Order 62. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: 11/9/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?