Fortinet, Inc v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 129

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 111 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2010)

Fortinet, Inc v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Doc. 129

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

MICHAEL A. LADRA, State Bar No. 64037 Email: [e-mail] JAMES C. YOON, State Bar No. 177155 Email: [e-mail] STEFANI E. SHANBERG, State Bar No. 206717 Email: [e-mail] ROBIN L. BREWER, State Bar No. 253686 Email: [e-mail] WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant FORTINET, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FORTINET, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., and PATRICK R. BROGAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT) ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS AND PORTIONS OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL PERTAINING TO FORTINET, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY REGARDING THE `974 PATENT

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION CASE NO.: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

3989501_1.DOC

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Having considered Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Fortinet, Inc.'s administrative motion to file under seal portions of Fortinet's Opposition to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.'s ("PAN") Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity Regarding the `974 Patent ("Opposition"), portions of the Declaration of Dr. Matthew A. Bishop in Support of Fortinet's Opposition ("Bishop Declaration"), and Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stefani E. Shanberg in Support of Fortinet's Opposition ("Confidential Exhibit") pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(c) and June 30, 2010good cause appearing: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fortinet's administrative motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Confidential Exhibit, portions of the Bishop Declaration identified in the Administrative Motion and the following portions of Fortinet's Opposition filed under seal: a) TOC i.16 (following "PAN's products do not. . ." through the end of the line); b) TOC i.17-23; c) 1:10-15; d) 4:11-12; e) 4:15-6:9; f) 6:14; g) 6:16-20; h) 6:22; i) 6:24-26; j) 7:1-6; k) 7:7-9 (following "it is woefully incomplete. . ." through ". . .(2) Mr. Zuk's Deposition"); l) 7:13-8:8; m) 8:13-14 (following "PAN firewalls are . . ." through end of line 14); n) 8:19-25; o) 9:3 (following "PAN's products do not . . ." through end of the line); p) 9:4-5 (following "PAN products . . ." through ". . .Motion at 1, 7"); q) 9:6-10:16;
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION CASE NO.: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-1-

3989501_1.DOC

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 Dated:

r) 18:16-17 (following "products practice . . ." through ". . .Details regarding further discovery"); and s) 18:25-28 (following "241:15-16. . ." through end of footnote) IT IS SO ORDERED

June 30, 2010

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Court Judge

Presented by: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg Stefani E. Shanberg Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant FORTINET, INC.

FORTINET'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF FORTINET'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO.: CV 08-05371 MMC

-2-

3989501_1.DOC