Cabela's Inc. v. Kelora Systems, LLC
Filing
80
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING (369 in case 4:11-cv-01548-CW), (65 in case 4:11-cv-01398-CW ), (69 in case 4:11-cv-02284-CW) MOTION OF CABELAS INC., NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC. AND NEWEGG INC. TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE DECLARATION OF RAY R. LARSON. (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 CABELA’S
INC., NEBRASKA
FURNITURE MART,
INC. AND NEWEGG
INC. TO FILE UNDER
SEAL THE
DECLARATION OF RAY
R. LARSON
v.
4
KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,
5
Defendant.
6
________________________________/
7
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
8
9
/
On September 15, 2011, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Cabela’s Inc. and Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. and Defendant and
11
Counterclaim-Plaintiff Newegg Inc. filed a motion pursuant to
12
Local Rule 79-5(d) for an order sealing the Declaration of Ray R.
13
Larson submitted in connection with their Motion for Summary
14
Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement.
15
request on conclusory statements that the declaration contained or
16
referred to materials that Movants have designated as
17
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only”
18
under the blanket Protective Order in effect in these cases and
19
that a third-party, Endeca, considered information contained or
20
referred to in the declaration to be proprietary and confidential.
21
On September 27, 2011, this Court issued an order stating
Movants based their
22
that Movants had not provided sufficient information to establish
23
that the document, or portions thereof, was privileged or
24
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
25
under the law, as required under Local Rule 79-5(a), and granted
26
Movants four additional days, or until October 3, 2011, to provide
27
additional information to meet this requirement.
28
2
The order
1
further warned that failure to provide additional information
2
would result in the denial of the motion to the extent that the
3
motion was based on the conclusory statement relying on a blanket
4
protective order.
5
The Order further directed Movants to serve Endeca with
6
copies of the order and the motion to seal within seven days, and
7
directed Endeca, if Endeca sought to seal the information, to file
8
a declaration in support of the motion providing good cause to
9
seal within fourteen days, or by October 11, 2011, as required by
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Local Rule 79-5(d).
Movants have not provided additional information to conform
12
with Local Rule 79-5(a).
13
filed a certificate of service stating that Endeca was served on
14
September 28, 2011, Endeca has not filed a declaration in support
15
of the motion to seal.
16
Further, although Movant Newegg Inc. has
Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED.
Movants are
17
directed to file the Declaration of Ray R. Larson in the public
18
record within four days, if they wish it to be considered.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated: 10/17/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
23
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?