Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 225

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 216 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012)

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. 216)

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 seek

13

leave to seal portions of their supplemental brief in opposition

14

to the motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiff

15

Adobe Systems Inc., portions of the supplemental Kornrumpf and

16

Boyce declarations and Exhibit D to the Boyce Declaration, and the

17

entirety of Exhibit E to the Boyce declaration.

18

already filed a redacted version of their supplemental brief, the

19

Kornrumpf and Boyce declarations and Exhibit D in the public

20

record.

21

Defendants have

Docket No. 215.

Defendants’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.

22

To establish that the documents are sealable, they “must overcome

23

a strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons

24

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general

25

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”

26

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)

27

(citation omitted).

28

This cannot be established simply by showing

1

that the documents are subject to a protective order or by stating

2

in general terms that the material is considered to be

3

confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration

4

demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document

5

under seal.

6

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

The Court has previously granted leave to file under seal a

7

settlement agreement, which the parties had executed to settle

8

prior litigation between them and had agreed to keep confidential

9

as part of the terms of settlement, and other documents that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

excerpted or referenced the terms of that settlement agreement.

11

See, e.g., Docket Nos. 150, 193, 201, 210.

12

that Exhibit E contains a copy of the settlement agreement, and

13

that the portions of the other documents that they seek to seal,

14

including the supplemental brief, Boyce and Kornrumpf declarations

15

and Exhibit D, contain excerpts and references to the terms of

16

that settlement agreement.

17

these documents, the Court finds that Defendants have established

18

that they are sealable.

19

Defendants represent

Boyce Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.

Having reviewed

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

20

motion to file under seal (Docket No. 216).

21

the date of this Order, Defendants shall file under seal their

22

unredacted supplemental brief, the Boyce and Kornrumpf

23

declarations and Exhibits D and E to the Boyce declaration.

24

Within four days of

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 6/11/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
2