Cardonet, Inc. v. IBM, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER to Plaintiff to Show Cause re 76 Defendant's Request to File Under Seal Certain Information Designated Confidential by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 2/8/08. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 2/8/2008)

Cardonet, Inc. v. IBM, Inc.

Doc. 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26(c); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Broad allegations of harm, however, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.") OR D E R, page 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARDONET, INC.,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) IBM CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 06-6637 RMW (PVT) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN INFORMATION DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL BY PLAINTIFF

On January 3, 2008, Defendant filed an Administrative Motion to File under Seal Portions of Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses To Interrogatories. As noted in Defendant's motion to seal, it was incumbent upon Plaintiff as the designating party to file, within five days, a declaration establishing that the designated documents are sealable,1 or else withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See CIVIL L.R. 79-5(d). As of the date of this order more than a month has elapsed and Plaintiff has filed neither a declaration establishing that the designated documents are sealable, nor any withdrawal of the designation of confidentiality. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2008, Plaintiff shall file either a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

withdrawal of the designation of confidentiality, or else a declaration showing cause why the information should not be made part of the public record. In addition to addressing Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), the showing must address separately each portion of the materials that Plaintiff contends warrants protection. See CIVIL L.R. 79-5, and commentary thereto. Dated: 2/8/08 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

OR D E R, page 2