Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Filing 127

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 122 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2011)

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
PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 122)

v.
QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

On December 14, 2011, Plaintiff Centrify Corporation filed an

12

administrative motion to file under seal Exhibit 2 to the

13

Declaration of Ryan Sandrock submitted in support of its Motion

14

for Relief from Case Management Schedule.

15

motion, Plaintiff submits a declaration stating that Defendant

16

Quest Software, Inc. has designated Exhibit 2 as containing

17

information that is “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

18

under the protective order in this case.

19

In support of its

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

20

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

21

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

22

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

23

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

24

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

25

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

26

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

27

file each document under seal.

28

document has been designated as confidential by another party,

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

If a

1

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

2

is sealable within seven days after the motion to seal was filed.

3

Civ. Local R. 79-5(d).

4

The deadline for Defendant to submit a declaration

5

establishing that Exhibit 2 is sealable was December 21, 2011, and

6

Defendant has not done so.

7

has previously filed Exhibit 2 in the public record in this case

8

with Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for relief.

9

Docket No. 120, Ex. G.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court also notes that Defendant

See

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal.

11

(Docket No. 122).

12

Plaintiff may file Exhibit 2 in the public record or may withdraw

13

the exhibit.

14

Within four days of the date of this Order,

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 12/23/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2