ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Security One International, Inc. et al

Filing 413

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 405 and 408 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 411 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,

Case No. 11-cv-05149-YGR

Plaintiff,
10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SECURITY ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET
AL.,

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH FURTHER
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 405, 408, 411

14

Plaintiff ADT Security Services, Inc. filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

15

(Dkt. No. 405) and an Amended Administrative Motion to File Materials Under Seal (Dkt. No.

16

408) in connection with its Supplemental Brief in Further Support of ADT's Application for an

17

Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not be Found in Contempt of the Court's October 1,

18

2013 Order. Defendants Security One International Inc. and Claudio Hand likewise filed their

19

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in connection with their supplemental briefing on the

20

same matter. (Dkt. No. 411.)

21

The Court having carefully considered those motions, and the declarations submitted in

22

support thereof, finds that compelling reasons have not been established for sealing the deposition

23

and documentary evidence as set forth in this Court’s Order on Cross-Motions For Orders To

24

Show Cause RE: Contempt Of Permanent Injunction And Protective Order (Dkt. No. 412,

25

“Contempt Order”.) Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the motions to seal are DENIED IN PART

26

and the following documents shall be filed on the public docket forthwith:

27



28

the unredacted version of Security One’s Response to ADT’s Supplemental Brief In Further
Support of ADT’s Application (Dkt. No. 411-6);

1



Supplemental Brief and all exhibits thereto (Dkt. No. 411-7);

2
3

the unredacted version of the Declaration of John O’Bryan ISO Defendants’ Reply to ADT’s



the unredacted Supplemental Brief in Further Support of ADT’s Application for an Order to

4

Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Found in Contempt of the Court’s October 1,

5

2013 Order (Dkt. No. 408-8);

6



the unredacted Declaration of Matthew J. Vanis, including:

7

-- Exhibits 2 and 3 to that declaration in their entirety; and

8

-- Exhibit 1, the deposition transcript of Emanuel Alexander Troise, III, to the extent

9

portions of that deposition are cited and discussion in the Court’s Contempt Order. (Dkt. Nos.
408-9 to 408-12.) As to any portions of the deposition transcript not cited in the Contempt Order,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

those portions are ORDERED SEALED on the grounds that they are proprietary business information

12

of third party UTC.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

This terminates Docket Nos. 405, 408, and 411.

15
16
17

Dated: October 19, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2