Oracle USA, Inc. et al v. Rimini Street, Inc. et al
Filing
1048
ORDER granting ECF Nos. 1014 , 1029 , and 1034 Motions to Seal; granting nunc pro tunc ECF No. 990 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/1/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation; )
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation; and ORACLE
)
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
)
California corporation;
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada
)
corporation; SETH RAVIN, an individual;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
2:10-CV-00106-LRH-PAL
ORDER
Before the court are defendants Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini Street”) and Seth Ravin’s
18
(“Ravin”) (collectively “defendants”) motion for extension of time to respond (ECF No. 990) and
19
motion to seal portions of their opposition to motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 1014).
20
Also before the court are plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle
21
International Corporation’s (collectively “Oracle”) motion to seal portions of its reply to the
22
motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 1029) and motion to seal response to objections to evidence
23
(ECF No. 1034).
24
As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public
25
access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.
26
1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that
1
presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are
2
also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135
3
(9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
4
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
5
disclosure.” Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)
6
(internal citations omitted).
7
Here, in this intellectual property action, the court has entered a protective order governing
8
documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties’ internal research and development,
9
internal business strategies, and other highly sensitive areas. The court has reviewed the documents
10
and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the documents at issue in the present motions
11
contain information that is either designated “Confidential” and/or “Highly Confidential” under the
12
protective order. The court finds that the parties have satisfied their burdens to show compelling
13
reasons for filing the various pleadings under seal. Further, the court notes that the parties
14
appropriately filed redacted versions of the same pleadings for public record. Accordingly, the
15
court shall grant the parties’ motions.
16
17
18
19
20
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ various motions to seal (ECF Nos. 1014,
1029, 1034) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF
No. 990) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
DATED this 1st day of August, 2016.
23
24
25
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
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?