Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 148

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 139 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 10-2769 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 139)

v.
HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY
KORNRUMPF,
Defendants.
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
________________________________/

12
13

Defendants and Counter-claimants Hoops Enterprise LLC and

14

Anthony Kornrumpf seek to file under seal their unredacted

15

opposition to Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated’s Motion for

16

Partial Summary Judgment, as well as Exhibits C, F, G, H, I, K and

17

L to their Opposition.

18

a redacted version of their opposition in the public record.

19

Defendants represent that the Court has previously granted leave

20

to file Exhibit C under seal.

21

Plaintiff has designated Exhibits F, G, H, I, K and L as

22

confidential pursuant to the protective order in this case, and

23

that Defendants quote these exhibits in their opposition.

24

The Court notes that Defendants have filed

Defendants also represent that

Defendants’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.

25

Because Plaintiff has designated the documents at issue as

26

confidential, it must file a declaration establishing that the

27

documents are sealable.

28

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

To do so,

1

Plaintiff “must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing

2

that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings .

3

. . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

4

favoring disclosure.’”

5

665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

6

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

7

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

8

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

9

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

file each document under seal.

This cannot be

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

In support of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff has filed a

12

declaration stating that the exhibits in question contain

13

“contract terms and language that is used by Adobe in its current

14

contracts with authorized distributors . . . protected by separate

15

confidentiality provisions” with these distributors, and that

16

public disclosure of these confidential terms would reveal

17

“Adobe’s internal workings and trade secrets regarding a core

18

aspect of its business.”

19

Drey Decl. ¶ 3.

The parties have provided compelling reasons to seal

20

Defendants’ unredacted opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

21

Partial Summary Judgment, as well as Exhibits C, F, G, H, I, K and

22

L to its Opposition.

23

GRANTED (Docket No. 139).

24

Order, Defendants shall file these documents under seal.

25

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is
Within four days of the date of this

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 1/4/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
2