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
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?