Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 150

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 145 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 Plaintiff, 6 7 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 145) v. HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, Defendants. 9 10 No. C 10-2769 CW ________________________________/ AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS ________________________________/ 12 13 Defendants and Counter-claimants Hoops Enterprise LLC and 14 Anthony Kornrumpf seek to file under seal Exhibit B to their 15 Opposition to Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated’s Motion for 16 Partial Summary Judgment. 17 In their declaration in support of their motion, Defendants 18 represent that Exhibit B is a settlement agreement that the 19 parties had executed to settle prior litigation between them and 20 state, “As part of the terms of the settlement agreement, the 21 parties agreed to keep the settlement confidential.” 22 ¶ 4. 23 Boyce Decl. Plaintiff has also filed a declaration in support of 24 Defendants’ motion. 25 Document is sealable because it contains privileged and sensitive 26 contract terms and language that was negotiated between the 27 Parties in connection with settlement of a previous litigation. 28 In the declaration, Plaintiff states, “The 1 Information included in the Document is not otherwise known 2 publicly and may be different than settlements achieved in other 3 Adobe litigation.” Coombs Decl. ¶ 3. 4 Defendants’ filing is connected to a dispositive motion. 5 do establish that the document is sealable, the parties “must 6 overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that 7 ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . 8 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 9 favoring disclosure.’” To Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 11 established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 12 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 13 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 14 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 15 file each document under seal. This cannot be Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). 16 Review of the settlement agreement and the parties’ 17 declarations makes clear that the document reveals information 18 that would not otherwise be known or available to the public and 19 that filing under seal is necessary to preserve the 20 confidentiality to which the parties assented as part of their 21 agreement to settle the earlier action. 22 that the parties have established that the settlement agreement is 23 sealable. 24 2002) (noting that “courts have granted protective orders to 25 protect confidential settlement agreements”); Prosurance Group, 26 Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22365, at 27 *3-4 (N.D. Cal.) (granting motion to seal to protect 28 confidentiality of terms of a settlement agreement). Thus, the Court finds See Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2 1 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to file under seal is GRANTED 2 (Docket No. 145). 3 Defendants shall file under seal Exhibit B to their Opposition. 4 Within four days of the date of this Order, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: 1/4/2012 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?