In re: Third Party Subpoenas Issued to Rambus, Inc., and Rambus Delaware LLC
Filing
24
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 5 22 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/14/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
In re: Third Party Subpoenas Issued to
RAMBUS, INC., AND RAMBUS
DELAWARE LLC
Case No. 14-mc-80293 EJD (NC)
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,
ORDER RE:
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL
14
Plaintiff,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 22
15
v.
16
ACER INC., ET AL.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Before the Court are two administrative motions to seal by Dell Inc. The first
concerns documents related to its motion to compel compliance with a subpoena. Dkt.
No. 5. The second concerns documents related to its reply in support of its motion to
compel. Dkt. 22.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D), an unredacted version of the document
sought to be filed under seal must be filed electronically under seal as an attachment to the
administrative motion. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). Indeed, the “[i]nstructions for e-filing
documents under seal can be found on the ECF website.” Id. In addition, the “unredacted
version must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
28
ORDER RE: DELL’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 14-mc-80293 EJD (NC)
1
1
that have been omitted from the redacted version . . . .” Id. Moreover, the local rules state
2
that “[d]ocuments which the filer has in an electronic format must be converted to PDF
3
from the word processing original, not scanned, to permit text searches . . . . Civ. L.R. 5-
4
1(e)(2).
5
Along with the rules that apply to unredacted versions of documents, parties that
6
seek to file documents under seal must also attach a proposed order that “lists in table
7
format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” Civ. L.R. 79-
8
5(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
9
Here, while Dell electronically filed a redacted version of its memorandum of
10
points and authorities in support of its motion to compel, Dkt. No. 1, Dell’s administrative
11
motion to seal does not include the unredacted version that contains highlights of the
12
redacted portions. See Dkt. No. 5. Its current motion to seal includes only three attached
13
documents: a declaration, a proposed order, and a cover page for an exhibit. Dkt. No. 5
14
(1-3). Dell also failed to file electronically unredacted versions of certain exhibits to the
15
declaration of Phillip D. Price; it merely included the cover page to those exhibits. Dkt.
16
No. 5-3. In terms of the proposed orders for both sealing motions, Dell also fails to list
17
the documents or portions of documents in table format. See Dkt. Nos. 5-2, 22-4.
18
This failure to comply with the local rules will not do.
19
Accordingly, the Court orders Dell to electronically file an amended sealing motion
20
relating to its initial motion to compel, and attach unredacted versions (with highlights) of
21
the documents identified above. However, this Court’s order is not limited to only the
22
documents discussed; Dell must apply the same rules to all other documents it seeks to
23
file under seal but failed to file on ECF.
24
Additionally, Dell must resubmit an amended sealing motion relating to its reply in
25
support of its motion to compel. Dkt. No. 22. Specifically, Dell must file electronically
26
an unredacted version of its reply, Dkt. No. 22-6, with the redacted portions highlighted.
27
In light of the upcoming hearing on Dell’s motion to compel, Dell must file all of
28
the documents by the end of today, November, 14, 2014.
ORDER RE: DELL’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 14-mc-80293 EJD (NC)
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Date: November 14, 2014
4
5
_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE: DELL’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 14-mc-80293 EJD (NC)
3
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?