Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 193

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 187 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012)

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
12

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 187)

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

9
10

No. C 10-2769 CW

________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
________________________________/
Defendants Hoops Enterprise LLC and Anthony Kornrumpf have

13

filed an administrative motion to file under seal Exhibit A to

14

their motions in limine.

15

inadvertently from their motion to seal a request to file under

16

seal an unredacted version of their motions in limine, and the

17

Court construes their motion to include this request as well.1

18

It appears that Defendants have omitted

In connection with a dispositive motion, the Court previously

19

granted leave to file under seal a settlement agreement that the

20

parties had executed to settle prior litigation between them and

21

had agreed to keep confidential as part of the terms of

22

settlement.

23

Exhibit A contains this settlement agreement.

See Docket No. 150.

Defendants represent that
Boyce Decl. ¶ 4.

24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants have filed a redacted version of their motions
in limine in the public record, see Docket No. 188, and have
submitted a chamber’s copy of the unredacted version of their
motions in limine in the same envelope as Exhibit A, with a cover
sheet indicating that it was a “lodged document to be filed under
seal.”

1

The Court also notes that the redacted portions of Defendants’

2

motions in limine are direct quotations from that settlement

3

agreement.

4

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

6

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

7

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

8

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

9

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

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

11

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

12

file each document under seal.

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

13

Having reviewed the documents that Defendants seek to seal,

14

the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause for

15

these documents to be filed under seal.

16

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to file under seal (Docket No. 187).

17

Within four days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall file

18

under seal their unredacted motions in limine and Exhibit A.

19

Accordingly, the Court

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: 5/24/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2