Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 155

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 152 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

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
STIPULATION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 152)

v.
HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY
KORNRUMPF,
Defendants.

9
10

No. C 10-2769 CW

________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
________________________________/

12
13

Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated and Defendants and

14

Counter-claimants Hoops Enterprise LLC and Anthony Kornrumpf have

15

filed a stipulation to file under seal Plaintiff’s unredacted

16

reply in further support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

17

Judgment.

18

Plaintiff has also filed a declaration in support of the

19

stipulation.

20

portions of the reply that the parties seek to seal discuss and

21

quote from contracts between Adobe and third parties that the

22

Court has previously granted permission to file under seal.

23

Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Docket No. 152.

24

granted permission for certain portions of Defendant’s opposition

25

to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that also

26

discuss from and quote the same contracts to be filed under seal,

27

based on Plaintiff’s earlier declaration stating that those

28

In the declaration, Plaintiff states that the

Wang

The Court notes that it has also

1

documents contain “contract terms and language that is used by

2

Adobe in its current contracts with authorized distributors . . .

3

protected by separate confidentiality provisions” with these

4

distributors, and that public disclosure of these confidential

5

terms would reveal “Adobe’s internal workings and trade secrets

6

regarding a core aspect of its business.”

7

No. 140.

Drey Decl. ¶ 3, Docket

8

Plaintiff’s filing is connected to a dispositive motion.

9

do establish that the document is sealable, the parties “must

To

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

11

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

12

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

13

favoring disclosure.’”

14

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

15

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

16

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

17

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

18

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

19

file each document under seal.

20

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d
This cannot be

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Documents cannot be sealed based solely on the parties’

21

stipulation.

22

reasons supporting the sealing of its unredacted reply in its

23

declaration in support of the stipulation and in its previous

24

declaration.

25

See id.

However, Plaintiff has provided compelling

Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to file under seal is

26

GRANTED (Docket No. 152).

27

Order, Plaintiff shall file its unredacted reply in further

Within four days of the date of this

28
2

1

support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under

2

seal.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 1/9/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
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