Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole, Inc.

Filing 139

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 137 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SOLANNEX, INC.,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MIASOLE, INC.,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 11-00171 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 37)

16
Defendant MiaSole, Inc. (“MiaSole”) administratively moves to seal certain information
17
and documents that Plaintiff Solannex, Inc. (“Solannex”) has produced to it. During the course of
18
the case, Solannex produced to MiaSole a settlement agreement from another case, Solannex, Inc.
19
v. Nanosolar, Inc., Case No. C 11-547 YGR and designated it as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The
20
settlement agreement contains business and financial terms that Solannex contends are highly
21
sensitive and confidential to its business. MiaSole seeks to file the information and documents
22
under seal in connection with a motion to compel. Having reviewed the papers and considered the
23
arguments of counsel,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that MiaSole’s administrative motion to seal is GRANTED25
IN-PART.
26
27
28
1
Case No.: C 11-0171 PSG
ORDER

1

MiaSole may file under seal the specific portions of its motion, and particular exhibits, that

2

Solannex has designated as privileged or otherwise protectable under the law. 1 MiaSole shall file

3

redacted versions of the motion to compel and the exhibits on the electronic docket. Pursuant to

4

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), Solannex shall file and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

5

information is sealable. Solannex must establish that “’good cause’ exists to protect this

6

information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the

7

need for confidentiality.” 2

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: 7/31/2012

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
2

28

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(a).

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
citations omitted).
2
Case No.: C 11-0171 PSG
ORDER