NanoeXa Corporation v. The University of Chicago et al

Filing 66

ORDER re 63 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Koh on 10/8/2010. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2010)

NanoeXa Corporation v. The University of Chicago et al

Doc. 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 24, 2010, Plaintiff Nanoexa Corporation moved to seal certain documents attached to its Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff requests leave to file under seal Exhibits A, D, and G to the Declaration of Nanoexa's Chief Executive Officer Michael Pak. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's motion to file under seal [dkt. #63] does not comply with Civil Local Rule 795(b), which requires that an administrative motion to file under seal be "accompanied by a declaration [by counsel] establishing that the entire document is sealable." Plaintiff's counsel has not submitted a declaration in support of his motion to file under seal. Moreover, a motion to seal documents must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material." Civ. Local Rule 79-5(a). It is not clear to the Court that Exhibit A and Exhibit 1
Case No.: 10-CV-2631-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NANOEXA CORP., v. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-02631-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL (re: docket #63)

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO and UCHICAGO ARGONE, LLC, Defendants.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

D, which pertain to Plaintiff's "corporate strategy" and "company plans," are sealable in their entirety. Finally, Exhibit G is a document that has already been produced and made part of the public record in this litigation and is thus not sealable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's motion to seal. Plaintiff shall file any renewed motion to seal, responding to the deficiencies identified above, by Wednesday, October 13, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2010

_________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

2
Case No.: 10-CV-2631-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL