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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., v. Plaintiff, No. C07-06222 RMW (HRL)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 nseth@bakerlaw.com, nseth@bakerlaw.com anemiroff@cozen.com, jcipriani@cozen.com, rbrenner@cozen.com todd.norris@bullivant.com, sanfranciscodocketing@bullivant.com Andrew P. Nemiroff Christopher Todd Norris David Moorman Emily Rita Frank Harold C. Moore drmoorman@maginot.com efrank@bakerlaw.com hcmoore@maginot.com jca@fr.com, mla@fr.com John Cameron Adkisson Joshua L. Raskin Juanita R. Brooks JRaskin@WOLFBLOCK.com brooks@fr.com, gonzales@fr.com, srodriguez@fr.com 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 klambert@bakerdonelson.com, lhunter@bakerdonelson.com, psigmon@bakerdonelson.com Limin Zheng zheng@fr.com, horsley@fr.com Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com, cakinselledge@fdml.com, etf@fdml.com, jgeringson@fdml.com, mme@fdml.com Martin G. Raskin Michael J Kane Michael J. Pape mraskin@cozen.com, jcipriani@cozen.com, rbrenner@cozen.com kane@fr.com, skarboe@fr.com, stenen@fr.com pape@fr.com, mla@fr.com mpowell@bakerdonelson.com, pburks@bakerdonelson.com Michael Joseph Powell Rex Hwang rhwang@fdml.com, cakinselledge@fdml.com smiller@bakerdonelson.com skcasey@bakerdonelson.com Samuel F Miller Sarah Katherine Casey Terry John Mollica William R. Woodford tjm@cmlawoffices.com woodford@fr.com, skarboe@fr.com, stenen@fr.com 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?