Ojmar US, LLC v. Security People, Inc. et al

Filing 137

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED 135 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OJMAR US, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 135

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ renewed administrative motion to file under seal

12
13

documents associated with Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

14

second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 135 (“Mot.”) at 1. In its order of November 29, 2017, the

15

Court denied in part Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal, finding that Plaintiff’s sealing request

16

was not narrowly tailored as applied to three confidential business agreements. See Dkt. No. 134

17

at 3–4.1 As the party claiming confidentiality, Defendants have resubmitted this request, and

18

complied with the Court’s prior order. See id.; Mot. at 1. The Court finds that the versions of the

19

documents now sought to be sealed are narrowly tailored and contain confidential business

20

information. See id.; In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922,

21

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ renewed

22

administrative motion to seal.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/1/2017

25

______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
1

28

The Court detailed the applicable legal standards in its prior sealing order, and incorporates that
analysis here.