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)

Download PDF
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?