Cabela's Inc. v. Kelora Systems, LLC
Filing
69
ORDER REGARDING MOTION OF CABELAS INC., NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC. AND NEWEGG INC. TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE DECLARATION OF RAY R. LARSON. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/27/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2011)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
CABELA’S INC.,
5
Plaintiff,
No. C 11-1398 CW
________________________________/
ORDER REGARDING
MOTION OF CABELA’S
INC., NEBRASKA
FURNITURE MART,
INC. AND NEWEGG
INC. TO FILE UNDER
SEAL THE
DECLARATION OF RAY
R. LARSON
10
KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,
No. C 11-1548 CW
11
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,
8
Defendant.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
12
13
v.
17
TARGET CORPORATION; OFFICEMAX
INCORPORATED; ROCKLER COMPANIES,
INC.; 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.;
AMAZON.COM, INC.; DELL, INC.;
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; NEWEGG INC.;
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY;
CIRCUITCITY.COM INC; AUDIBLE,
INC.; and ZAPPOS.COM, INC.,
18
Defendants.
14
15
16
19
OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED.,
20
21
22
23
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Third-Party Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________/
1
NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC.,
2
Plaintiff,
3
No. C 11-2284 CW
v.
4
KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,
5
Defendant.
6
________________________________/
7
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/
8
9
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d), Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants Cabela’s Inc. and Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. and
11
Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Newegg Inc. move for an order
12
sealing the Declaration of Ray R. Larson submitted in connection
13
with their Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and
14
Non-Infringement.
15
Movants base their request in part on their statement that a
16
third-party, Endeca, considers information contained or referred
17
to in the declaration to be proprietary and confidential.
18
However, Endeca has not filed a declaration in support of sealing
19
this information, as required by Local Rule 79-5(d).
20
Nevertheless, it is not clear that Endeca has been served
21
with or otherwise notified of the motion to seal.
22
reserves judgment as to whether to seal the declaration.
23
seven days of the date of this order, Movants shall serve Endeca
24
with the motion to seal the declaration and this order, and file
25
proof that they have done so.
26
seal the information, it shall file a declaration in support of
27
the motion to seal within fourteen days of the date of this order.
Thus, the Court
Within
In the event that Endeca seeks to
28
2
1
The declaration must provide good cause to seal in light of Local
2
Rule 79-5 and applicable law.
3
Movants also base their request to file the declaration under
4
seal on their assertion that the declaration contains or refers to
5
materials that Movants have designated as “Confidential” or
6
“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective
7
Order in effect in these cases.
8
blanket protective order and do not provide information
9
establishing that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged
However, Movants rely on a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
11
protection under the law, as required under Local Rule 79-5(a).
12
As such, Movants have not provided sufficient information to
13
support the filing of the document under seal at this time.
14
Movants shall be permitted four days from the date of this
15
order to provide additional information to conform with Local Rule
16
79-5.
17
the extent that it is based on their conclusory statement.
18
Filings made hereunder may not exceed five pages, excluding
19
declarations and exhibits.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
If Movants fail to do so, their motion will be denied, to
21
22
23
Dated: 9/27/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?