RSI Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation et al

Filing 239

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting in part and denying in part 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 228 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 230 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 237 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

16
17

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. C-08-03414 RMW

RSI CORP., dba RESPONSIVE SYSTEMS
COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation,

vs.

[Re Docket No. 219, 228, 230, 233, 237]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation;
and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

Each party has filed multiple administrative motions to file under seal pursuant to the

22

Local Rules. See Dkt. Nos. 219, 228, 230, 233, 237. IBM has designated the documents at issue

23

confidential and therefore it falls to IBM to establish that they should be filed under seal. L.R.

24

79-5. The court finds, for most of the documents, that IBM has failed to make this showing.

25

To be sealable a document must be "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

26

otherwise entitled to protection under the law." L.R. 79-5(a). It is not appropriate to seal

27

documents merely because a party has marked them confidential under the protective order.

28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. C-08-03414

sw

-1-

1
2

Here IBM wants to seal documents (including emails and deposition transcripts) relating
to the naming of a product and the logistics of an audit. These are not trade secrets.

3

ORDER

4

If IBM does not either withdraw its confidentiality designations or file a declaration

5

stating with specificity why each document or portion of a document is privileged or protectable

6

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law by December 7, 2012, the court

7

hereby orders as follows:

8

•

The Administrative Motion For RSI’s Supplemental Brief On Issues Of

9

Willfulness And Estoppel (Dkt. No. 219), is granted with respect to Exhibit B of

10

the Declaration of Ivan Gelb (Dkt. No. 223). The court denies the motion with

11

respect to the all the other documents or portions of documents.
•

12

The Administrative Motion To File Under Seal IBM’s Motion To Strike The

13

Declaration Of Irving S. Rappaport In Its Entirety, And Portions Of The

14

Supplemental Declaration Of Pamela L. Schultz (Dkt. No. 228) is denied.
•

15

The Administrative Motion To File Under Seal IBM’s Response To RSI’s

16

Supplemental Brief Re: Willful Infringement And Estoppel (Dkt. No. 230) is

17

denied.
•

18

The Administrative Motion For RSI’s Opposition To Motion To Strike Entirety Of

19

Declaration Of Irving Rappaport And Portions Of Declaration Of Pamela L.

20

Schultz (Dkt. No. 233) is denied.
•

21

The Administrative Motion To File Under Seal IBM’s Reply In Further Support

22

Of Motion To Strike The Declaration Of Irving S. Rappaport In Its Entirety, And

23

Portions Of The Supplemental Declaration Of Pamela L. Schultz (Dkt. No. 237) is

24

denied.

25
26

IBM will also file a new proposed order reflecting any amendments to its proposed
redactions with its declaration.

27
28

If IBM does not file a new declaration, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), RSI and IBM will
have 4 days following the issuance of the order regarding the motions to seal on December 7,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. C-08-03414

sw

-2-

1

2012 to either re-submit the documents for filing in the public record or to withdraw the

2

documents.

3

In light of the above order, IBM is ordered to re-lodge with the court copies of the

4

documents to be sealed under the administration motions at docket entries: 155, 170, and 203.

5

These new copies will indicate what passages IBM believes are privileged or protectable as a

6

trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. IBM will also file a declaration

7

setting forth with specificity the basis for any proposed redactions. These documents and

8

declarations are due on December 14, 2012.

9

Furthermore, the court orders parties to indicate the docket number of the associated

10

motion to seal and the date the motion to seal was filed on the first page of all future documents

11

lodged with the court to be filed under seal.

12
13
14

Dated: November 30, 2012
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. C-08-03414

sw

-3-