PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Sandisk Corporation

Filing 75

Order by Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying 66 Motion to Dismiss and Vacating October 16, 2012 Hearing. Defendant to file answer by no later than November 5, 2012. (ygrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 Northern District of California ORDER DENYING SANDISK CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS vs. SANDISK CORPORATION, 11 United States District Court Case No.: 11-CV-04689 YGR Defendant. 12 Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. In the Court’s Order 13 14 granting the motion to dismiss the original complaint, the Court identified several areas where the 15 original complaint lacked sufficient detail. 16 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the amended complaint, a significant 17 portion of which were filed under seal, the Court finds that Plaintiff has responded to each concern. 18 Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss.1 19 While Plaintiff has addressed the Court’s concerns, it bears noting that the Court has kept this 20 Order short, in part, because so much of the amended complaint is sealed. That said, this does not 21 mean that the information will remain under seal. The parties are reminded that this is a public forum. 22 To the extent that any documents will be used in court proceedings, a party’s confidentiality 23 designation does not mean that the documents will ultimately be sealed in a public proceeding. In 24 determining whether to seal documents, a court must weigh relevant factors including the “public 25 interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 26 improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 27 28 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for October 16, 2012. 1 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v. 2 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). In effect, a sealing order would require the Court to 3 lock the courtroom doors as to the proffered material during the hearing. While the decision to seal is 4 within the trial court’s discretion, the basis for sealing must be compelling. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. 5 Defendant shall file an answer by no later than November 5, 2012. 6 This Order terminates Dkt. No. 66. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: October 12, 2012 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?