Cabela's Inc. v. Kelora Systems, LLC

Filing 79

ORDER REGARDING (383 in 4:11-cv-01548-CW), (85 in 4:11-cv-02284-CW), (73 in 4:11-cv-01398-CW) MOTION OF KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE DECLARATION OF SHAWN G. HANSEN. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/17/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CABELA’S INC.,

5
6

Plaintiff,
v.

7

KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,

8

Defendant.

9

________________________________/

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 11-1398 CW

KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,

11

Plaintiff,

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

________________________________/

No. C 11-1548 CW

1

NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC.,

2

Plaintiff,

3

No. C 11-2284 CW
ORDER REGARDING
MOTION OF KELORA
SYSTEMS, LLC TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
THE DECLARATION OF
SHAWN G. HANSEN

v.

4

KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d), Kelora Systems, LLC moves for

11

an order sealing the Declaration of Shawn G. Hansen, submitted in

12

support of Kelora Systems, LLC’s Opposition to Defendants’ Claim

13

Construction Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity

14

and Non-Infringement, and Exhibits A through E attached to the

15

declaration.

16

declaration that these exhibits “contain materials that have been

17

designated by other parties as ‘Highly Confidential -- Attorneys’

18

Eyes Only’ under the Protective Order in these cases.”

19

Decl. ¶ 3.

20

In support of its motion, Movant offers a

Hansen

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, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009). This cannot

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.

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).
2

1

Further, if a party wishes to file a document that has been

2

designated confidential by another party, the submitting party

3

must file and serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order.

4

Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

5

notice to the designating party that the submitting party is

6

seeking to file material that the designating party believes is

7

confidential, because within seven days after the administrative

8

motion is filed, the designating party must file a declaration

9

establishing that the information is sealable.

The submitting party must provide adequate

Id.

If the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

designating party does not file its responsive declaration, the

11

document or proposed filing will be made part of the public

12

record.

13

Id.

Here, Movant relies on conclusory statements and does not

14

make clear which “other parties” have designated this material as

15

“Highly Confidential -- Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

16

review of the material which Movant seeks to seal, it appears that

17

multiple parties to these cases, as well as Endeca, a third-party

18

who is not a party to these cases, may consider this material to

19

be confidential.

20

or otherwise notified of the motion to seal and its obligation to

21

support its designation of confidentiality.

Based upon a

It is not clear that Endeca has been served with

22

Movant is ordered to file an amended motion to file under

23

seal to include a specific statement as to which parties or third-

24

parties have designated this material to be confidential.

25

third-party has designated this material to be confidential,

26

Movant shall also file proof with the Court that it has served

27

that third-party with a copy of the amended motion and of this

28

order.

If a

Within seven days after the amended motion is filed and
3

1

served, any parties who consider the information to be

2

confidential shall file a declaration in support of the motion to

3

seal.

4

to file each document under seal in light of Local Rule 79-5 and

5

applicable law.

6

The declarations must state with particularity good cause

If the parties designating the material as confidential fail

7

to file their responsive declarations as required by Local Rule

8

79-5(d), the document or proposed filing will be made part of the

9

public record, to the extent that the motion relied upon their

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

designation.

11

excluding declarations and exhibits.

12
13
14

Filings made hereunder may not exceed five pages,

In the future, all parties must follow Local Rule 79-5 and
these procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 10/17/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4