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