Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 201


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 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 197) AND STRIKING IMPROPERLY FILED DOCUMENT (Docket No. 196) v. HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, Defendants. 9 10 No. C 10-2769 CW ________________________________/ AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS ________________________________/ Plaintiff Adobe Systems Inc. has filed a motion to file under 13 14 seal its unredacted brief in opposition to the motions in limine 15 filed by Defendants Hoops Enterprise LLC and Anthony Kornrumpf. 16 The Court has previously granted leave to file under seal a 17 settlement agreement that the parties had executed to settle prior 18 litigation between them and had agreed to keep confidential as 19 part of the terms of settlement. 20 Plaintiff represents that the portions of the brief it presently 21 seeks to file under seal contains excerpts and references to the 22 terms of that settlement agreement. See Docket Nos. 150, 193. Wang Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff has already filed a version of its opposition to 23 24 Defendants’ motions in limine in the public record. 25 196. 26 attempted to redact the document by placing a black box over one 27 area, the text underneath that box remains accessible. 28 Docket No. The Court notes that, while Plaintiff has apparently 1 Because the public interest favors filing all court documents 2 in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under 3 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. 4 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 5 be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 6 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 7 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 8 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 9 file each document under seal. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Pintos v. Pac. This cannot See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Having reviewed the portions of the brief that Plaintiff 11 seeks to seal, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated 12 good cause for the unredacted brief to be filed under seal. 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file under 14 seal (Docket No. 197). 15 confidential material, the Court STRIKES Docket No. 196 and 16 directs the Clerk to delete it from the public docket. Further, because Docket No. 196 contains 17 Within four days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall 18 file under seal its unredacted opposition to Defendants’ motions 19 in limine and shall file a properly redacted version of its 20 opposition in the public record. 21 Northern District of California has posted helpful information 22 about redaction on its public website, which can be accessed at 23 24 The Court notes that the IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: 5/31/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 28 2

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?