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