Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 115

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 110 MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT AND GRANTING 111 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

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