Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART SEALING MOTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 58 , 63 and 66 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2014)

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
12

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.
MOBILEIRON, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
SEALING MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 58, 63 and 66)

Before the court are three sealing motions filed in this case. One of the requests is

17
18

concededly overbroad. 1 Two of the motions are not supported by timely declarations in

19

compliance with the Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 2 In large part, however, the sealing requests are

20

narrowly tailored. The court rules as follows:

21
22
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

See Docket No. 62 at ¶ 7 (“Mr. Sirota’s deposition lasted an entire day. On information and
belief, Good cites to only a small portion of the deposition transcript in its Motion for Leave, but
has chosen to submit the entire transcript as an exhibit. MobileIron respectfully requests that the
entirety of Exhibit 12 be maintained under seal, as it would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome
for MobileIron to review the transcript for purposes of identifying portions – likely unrelated to
Good’s Motion for Leave – that may be made public.”); see also Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (“The request
must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with
Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”).
2

See Docket Nos. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1) (“Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion
to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”).
1
Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART SEALING MOTIONS