VIA Technologies, Inc. (a California corporation) et al v. ASUS Computer International et al

Filing 141

ORDER RE: 140 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEALING ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on March 28, 2016 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

13

15
16
17
18

(Re: Docket No. 140)

Earlier today, the court unsealed certain documents filed by Defendants in connection with
their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.1 At the same time, the court granted Plaintiffs’
motion to seal certain other documents filed in support of their reply to the motion to compel.2
But because Defendants and Plaintiffs each filed the same document separately,3 the court’s order
effectively treated two identical documents differently. Plaintiffs now ask the court to revisit that
decision.4

19
20

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SEALING
ORDER

Defendants.

12

14

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

Where a party files documents that its opponent has designated as confidential, “the
Submitting Party’s declaration in support of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal must

21
22
23

1

See Docket No. 139.

24

2

See id.

25

3

See Docket Nos. 120-5, 122-5.

26

4

See Docket No. 140.

27
28

1
Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
SEALING ORDER

1

identify the document or portions thereof which contain the designated confidential material.”5

2

Within four days, the party designating material as sealable—here, Plaintiffs—then “must file a

3

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material

4

is sealable.”6
With respect to the documents at issue, the court specifically indicated that Plaintiffs had

5
6

filed “[n]o declaration in support . . . as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).”7 The declaration

7

Plaintiffs filed with their reply to the motion to compel made no mention of the documents

8

Defendants had filed with their opposition.8 In the absence of a supporting declaration, the court

9

might still have compared the document sought to be sealed with every other sealable document
that looked sufficiently similar. But the clear instructions of Local Rule 79-5 spare courts that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

thankless task.
Plaintiffs’ instant motion still does not remedy the defect. Instead of denying the motion,

12
13

however, the court will give Plaintiffs a third bite at the apple. Plaintiffs shall file any declaration

14

“establishing that all of the designated material is sealable”9 by 5:00 PM tomorrow.

15

SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: March 28, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

5

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

23

6

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

24

7

Docket No. 139 at 3.

25

8

See Docket No. 122-1.

26

9

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

27
28

2
Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
SEALING ORDER