Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Chung et al

Filing 172

ORDER PERMITTING 169 LEAVE TO FILE APPENDED MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION AND RE 171 STAYING CERTAIN DECEMBER 21, 2020 SEALING ORDERS PENDING DISPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/1/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

9

v.

12

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO FILE APPENDED MOTION
FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
AND STAYING DECEMBER 21, 2020
SEALING ORDERS PENDING
DISPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13

Re: Dkt. Nos. 169, 171

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-07562-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

14

WILSON CHUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

On December 21, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in

15

part various motions to seal filed in connection with defendants Plantronics Inc.’s and

16

Thomas Puorro’s (collectively, “Plantronics”) motion to strike and challenge the

17

sufficiency of plaintiff’s California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210 trade secret

18

designation (the “disclosure”). Dkt. 168 (the “December 21 Order”). The court directed

19

plaintiff to prepare and provide Plantronics with redacted copies of various filings

20

considered in that order and consistent with the order’s sealing determinations. Id. at 32.

21

Plaintiff was required to provide Plantronics the subject copies by December 31, 2020.

22

Id. By January 4, 2021, plaintiff and Plantronics were both required to file on the public

23

docket the subject copies as well as other specified filings. Id.

24

On December 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for leave (Dkt. 169) to file an

25

appended motion for partial reconsideration of the December 21 Order’s determinations

26

on the various motions to seal (Dkt. 169-1). In its partial motion for reconsideration,

27

plaintiff argues that the court “failed to consider critical legal arguments and facts that

28

support sealing” five excerpts in the disclosure and a slide in a supporting exhibit that the

1

court ordered unsealed. Dkt. 169-1 at 3. Plaintiff challenges only those six sealing

2

determinations. Id. at 3.

3

On December 31, 2020, at approximately 5:00 pm (PT), plaintiff filed a motion to

4

stay portions of the December 21 Order’s sealing determinations. Dkt. 171. In particular,

5

plaintiff requests that the court stay the following portions of that order pending a decision

6

on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration:

7

•

Plaintiff’s obligation to provide Plantronics a redacted copy of the disclosure
consistent with the court’s sealing determination. Dkt. 171 at 2.

8
9

•

Plantronics’s obligation to file that copy on the public docket by January 4,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2021. Id.
•

Plaintiff’s obligation to publicly file a redacted copy of Docket 156-1 consistent
with the court’s sealing determinations. Id.

12
13

In its motion to stay, plaintiff’s counsel represents that Plantronics does not

14

oppose plaintiff’s motion to stay but does oppose its motion for partial reconsideration.

15

Id. at 2.

16

The court permits plaintiff leave to file (Dkt. 169) its motion for partial

17

reconsideration (Dkt. 169-1). Pursuant to its inherent authority to manage its docket, the

18

court STAYS the above-bulleted portions of its December 21 Order. To be clear, the

19

subject order to stay should not be read to suggest that the underlying motion for

20

reconsideration has merit. Rather, the court prefers to have an opportunity to fully

21

consider and rule on the motion. Plantronics may file a ten-page opposition to it within

22

ten days of this order. Plaintiff may not file a reply.

23

This order does not affect the parties’ remaining obligations under the December

24

21 Order. Additionally, plaintiff should be prepared to provide Plantronics with a copy of

25

the redacted disclosure and Docket 156-1 for public filing immediately following the

26

court’s decision on the motion for partial reconsideration. Plaintiff should also understand

27

that, going forward, the court will not entertain eleventh hour motions.

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

1
2
3

Dated: January 1, 2021
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3