Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.
Filing
119
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 117 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
CENTRIFY CORPORATION,
5
6
7
8
9
No. C 10-3873 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 117)
v.
QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
On December 5, 2011, Defendant Quest Software, Inc., filed an
12
amended administrative motion to file under seal Exhibits B
13
through G in support of its Opposition to Plaintiff Centrify
14
Corporation’s Motion for Relief from Case Management Schedule.
15
support of its motion, Defendant submits a declaration stating
16
that Exhibits B through G contain information designated as
17
“Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective
18
order in this case and describing the information contained in
19
each exhibit.
20
In
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
21
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
22
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.
23
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).
24
be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
25
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
26
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
27
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
28
file each document under seal.
Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot
See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).
If a
1
document has been designated as confidential by another party,
2
that party must file a declaration establishing that the document
3
is sealable.
4
Civ. Local R. 79-5(d).
Defendant does not establish good cause to seal Exhibits B
5
through G.
6
states that they are confidential or highly confidential.
7
Decl. ¶¶ 2-7.
8
exhibits, Defendant does not explain why this information must be
9
sealed.
Defendant describes the contents of each exhibit and
Armon
While Defendant explains the contents of the
See Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-1211 (9th Cir.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
2002) (“For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection
11
bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will
12
result” if public disclosure is permitted.).
13
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal.
14
(Docket No. 117).
15
Defendant may file unredacted versions of their documents in the
16
public record or may withdraw the exhibits.
17
Within four days of the date of this Order,
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
Dated: 12/13/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?