Apple Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER RE: REQUIRED DECLARATION TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF REPLY UNDER SEAL (Dkt. No. 80). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/20/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

APPLE INC.,

Case No.: 11-1327 PJH (JSC)
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14
15

ORDER RE: REQUIRED
DECLARATION TO SUPPORT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE
PORTIONS OF REPLY UNDER
SEAL (Dkt. No. 80)

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file portions of

18
19

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel Discovery under seal pursuant to Local

20

Rule 79-5. (Dkt. No. 80.) Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that a request for sealing “must be

21

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material” and that a “stipulation, or a

22

blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not

23

suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Plaintiff seeks to seal materials

24

designated by Defendant as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—

25

OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 61) in

26

this action. Plaintiff lists the portions1 of documents Plaintiff wishes to file under seal,

27
28

1

Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of its reply, portions of David J. Sepanik’s declaration, and
exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K in their entirety. (Dkt. No. 80.)

1

which is clarified by the redacted version of the documents in question that Plaintiff provided

2

to the Court.

3

At the time of this Order, however, Defendant has not filed a declaration in support of

4

Plaintiff’s motion as required by L.R. 79-5(d), which states that within 7 days of Plaintiff

5

filing an administrative motion to seal documents designated by Defendant as confidential,

6

Defendant “must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

7

information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order,

8

or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” As noted in L.R. 79-5(d), “the

9

document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record” if this responsive

Northern District of California

declaration is not filed. Defendant may file such a declaration on or before August 22, 2012.

11
United States District Court

10

If none is received, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: August 20, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2