Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc. et al

Filing 366

ORDER granting 364 Motion to File Certain Portions of the Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Third-Party KPMG Documents Designated as Privileged by Defendant Novatel and Certain Exhibits to the Declaration of Eric I. Niehaus in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 04/14/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
In re NOVATEL WIRELESS SECURITIES
12 LITIGATION
13
14

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

618095_1

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Lead Case No. 08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB)
CLASS ACTION
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF THE REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF THIRD-PARTY KPMG
DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED AS
PRIVILEGED BY DEFENDANT NOVATEL
AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO THE
DECLARATION OF ERIC I. NIEHAUS IN
SUPPORT OF THE REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF THIRD-PARTY KPMG
DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED AS
PRIVILEGED BY DEFENDANT NOVATEL
UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL
RULE 79.2 AND THE PROTECTIVE
ORDER ENTERED NOVEMBER 18, 2009
[ECF NO. 364]

1

On April 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to file under seal certain portions of

2 the Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Third-Party KPMG Documents
3 Designated as Privileged by Defendant Novatel (the “Reply”) and certain documents in connection
4 with the Reply. Dkt. No. 364. Plaintiffs seek to file under seal certain portions of the Reply and
5 Exhibits 1, 4-10 to the Declaration of Eric I. Niehaus in Support of the Reply in Support of
6 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Third-Party KPMG Documents Designated as Privileged
7 by Defendant Novatel (“Niehaus Declaration”) pursuant to Local Rule 79.2 and the Protective Order
8 Re Confidentiality as Modified by the Court, entered November 18, 2009. Id. On April 11, 2011,
9 plaintiffs filed a redacted version of the Reply. Dkt. No. 365.
10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes a court to order “that a trade secret or other

11 confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only
12 in a specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). Courts have “broad latitude to grant protective
13 orders to prevent disclosure of materials for many types of information.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d
14 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). In exercising that discretion, the court must determine whether good
15 cause for such an order exists. Id. at 1212.
16

In this case, after reviewing the documents in question, the Court concludes that good cause

17 exists to file them under seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ ex parte application for
18 leave to:
19

1.

file certain portions of the Reply under seal; and

20

2.

file Exhibits 1, 4-10 to the Niehaus Declaration under seal.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23 DATED: April 14, 2011
24

_________________________________________
_ _ __ __ _ _ _
______________________________
____
_ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _
____
THE HONORABLE RUBEN B. BROOKS
HONORABLE RUBEN B
H
U
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
618095_1

-1-

08-CV-01689-AJB(RBB)