Lansmont Corporation v. SPX Corporation et al

Filing 95

ORDER RE: COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-5(d). The court extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 until 8/17/2012, at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff is notified that failure to file a compliant declaration by the extended deadline will result in an order denying Defendants administrative motion and directing Defendant to file all documents as part of the public record, even those previously designated as confidential. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/15/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD

LANSMONT CORPORATION,

11

ORDER RE: COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL
LOCAL RULE 79-5(d)

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
SPX CORPORATION, et. al.,
[Docket Item No(s). 90]

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

/
Presently before the court is Defendant SPX Corporation’s (“Defendant”) administrative

17

motion to file under seal certain documents previously designated as confidential by Plaintiff

18

Lansmont Corporation (“Plaintiff”). See Docket Item No. 90.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) states:
If a party wishes to file a document that has been designated
confidential by another party pursuant to a protective order, or if a
party wishes to refer in a memorandum or other filing to information
so designated by another party, the submitting party must file and
serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order and lodge the
document, memorandum or other filing in accordance with this rule.
If only a portion of the document, memorandum or other filing is
sealable, the submitting party must also lodge with the Court a
redacted version of the document, memorandum or other filing to be
placed in the public record if the Court approves the requested sealing
order. Within 7 days thereafter, the designating party must file with
the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated
information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored
proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of
confidentiality. If the designating party does not file its responsive
declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed
filing will be made part of the public record.
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER RE: COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-5(d)

1

Defendant’s administrative motion was filed on July 26, 2012. From that date, Plaintiff’s

2

declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 should have been filed on or before August 2, 2012.

3

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6; see also Civ. L.R. 1-5(c). To date no such declaration has been filed.1

4

Accordingly, the court extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a declaration pursuant to Civil

5

Local Rule 79-5 until Friday, August 17, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff is notified that failure to file

6

a compliant declaration by the extended deadline will result in an order denying Defendant’s

7

administrative motion and directing Defendant to file all documents as part of the public record,

8

even those previously designated as confidential.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: August 15, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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

1

The document which purports to be an response to the sealing motion pursuant to its
description on the docket (see Docket Item No. 94) actually appears to be an opposition to a motion
for summary judgment.
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05860 EJD
ORDER RE: COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-5(d)