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)

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