Adaptix, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying (205) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-01777-PSG; denying (172) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-01774-PSG; denying (200) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-01778-PSG; denying (202) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; denying (191) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-01844-PSG; denying (186) Motion for Leave to File in case 5:13-cv-02023-PSG (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2014)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6
7
8
9

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.
Defendants.

19
20

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

21
22

v.
AT&T, Inc., et al.,

23
24

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01774-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 172)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 202)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01777-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 205)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01778-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 200)

25
26
27
28
1
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1774; -1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

2
v.

3
4

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, et al.,
Defendants.

5
6

ADAPTIX, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.
APPLE INC., et al.
Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01844-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 191)

Case No. 5:13-cv-02023-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 186)

11
Before the court is Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc’s motion for leave to file a motion for

12
13

reconsideration of this court’s April 17, 2014 orders denying various administrative motions to file

14

under seal.

15
16
17

All reconsideration motions big and small must pass muster under Civil L.R. 7-9(b).
Adaptix seeks relief exclusively pursuant to subsection (1), which requires a moving party to
establish that “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court

18
before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.” The only difference
19
20

Adaptix points to is its failure to comply with this district’s four-day deadline for submitting a

21

declaration in support of any adversary’s sealing request. This plainly does not qualify; to

22

conclude otherwise would be to effectively eliminate all deadlines in this court’s local rules.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Mindful of the impact of this plain reading of the local rule, the court has nevertheless
reviewed the materials at issue. In seeking to seal whole pages of attorney correspondence and
deposition transcripts that are anything but confidential, Adaptix’ request runs afoul of the
requirement that any sealing request be narrowly tailored. 1
1

See Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

2
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1774; -1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

The motion is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: April 29, 2014

4
5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1774; -1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION