Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 201

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 197 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND STRIKING IMPROPERLY FILED 196 DOCUMENT.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

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
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

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/faq/tips/redacting.htm.

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