Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 245

ORDER re 211 plaintiff's motion to seal. Defendant Bel Fuse, Inc. to submit supporting declarations by 6/22/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/18/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., v. Plaintiff, No. C07-06222 RMW (HRL) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL [Re: Docket No. 211] *E-FILED 06-18-2010*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

BEL FUSE INC., E & E MAGNETIC PRODUCTS LIMITED, ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION, WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC., WURTH ELEKTRONIK GMBH & CO. KG, and XFMRS, INC., Defendants. /

Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo") moves to seal portions of (1) Halo's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Answers and Production of Documents from Defendant Bel Fuse, Inc. ("Bel Fuse"), (2) the supporting declaration of Michael J. Pape, and (3) Exhibits 1-5, 7-10, 1219, and 23-25 of the Pape Declaration. Halo says that sealing is warranted because the subject information has been designated for "Attorneys Eyes Only" by defendant Bel Fuse. Bel Fuse, however, has failed to file declaration(s) establishing that the information is sealable. As such, the information is now subject to being made part of the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Nevertheless, Bel Fuse will be given an additional opportunity to explain why sealing is required. Accordingly, no later than June 22, 2010, Bel Fuse shall file declaration(s) from

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

appropriate person(s) showing why sealing is warranted. Bel Fuse is advised that the mere designation of information pursuant to a stipulation or blanket protective order will not justify sealing. Instead, Bel Fuse must establish that the subject documents (or portions of thereof) are privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. CIV. L. R. 79-5(a). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:07-cv-06222-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: A. Neal Seth [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew P. Nemiroff

Christopher Todd Norris David Moorman Emily Rita Frank Harold C. Moore

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

John Cameron Adkisson Joshua L. Raskin Juanita R. Brooks

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Kent Andrew Lambert [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Limin Zheng [e-mail], [e-mail]

Martin C. Fliesler [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Martin G. Raskin Michael J Kane Michael J. Pape [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael Joseph Powell Rex Hwang

[e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Samuel F Miller

Sarah Katherine Casey Terry John Mollica William R. Woodford

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

3