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)

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 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

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?