Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.
Filing
83
ORDER Modifying 75 Order re Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re 73 , 78 . Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 9/2/2014. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
DELPHIX CORP.,
Case No. 13-cv-04613-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
ACTIFIO, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER MODIFYING ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[ECF 75]
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On August 20, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Delphix Corp.’s
14
administrative motion to file under seal. (Order, ECF 75) Specifically, the Court denied
15
Plaintiff’s sealing request as to Exhibit G to its Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended
16
Complaint and proposed Fourth Amended Complaint because the party designating that document
17
as confidential—defendant Actifio, Inc.—had not submitted a declaration in support of sealing.
18
The Court also ordered Plaintiff to propose narrowly tailored redactions to its motion brief and
19
proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3)
20
On August 22, 2014, Defendant filed an administrative motion to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit
21
G, explaining that Defendant had “inadvertently failed to timely respond” to Plaintiff’s sealing
22
motion. (Def.’s Admin. Mot. 1, ECF 78) Defendant’s declaration in support of sealing indicates
23
that Exhibit G contains “highly confidential business information of Actifio’s CEO, Mr. Ashutosh,
24
and third-parties” pertaining to the terms of Mr. Ashutosh’s separation from those third party
25
entities. Having considered Defendant’s submission, the Court finds good cause to modify its
26
prior order and GRANT Plaintiff’s sealing request as to Exhibit G.
27
28
On August 27, 2014, in accordance with this Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a response
indicating that “no redactions are necessary to protect confidential information in its Motion for
1
Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint or Fourth Amended Complaint.” (Pl.’s Response 2,
2
ECF 81) As such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
3
4
5
1. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal is GRANTED with respect to
Exhibits F, G, H, and I. Those exhibits shall remain under seal.
2. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal is DENIED with respect to the
6
originally proposed redactions to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended
7
Complaint and Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. Unredacted versions of those
8
documents shall be entered in the public record.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?