Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Filing 119


Download PDF
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?