2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 158

ORDER Granting 144 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 2-WAY COMPUTING, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No.2:11-cv-00012-JCM-PAL ORDER (Mtn to Seal - Dkt. #144) 12 13 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File 14 Under Seal (Dkt. #144). No response to the Motion was filed, and the time for filing one has now run. 15 The court has considered the Motion. 16 Plaintiff seeks an order, pursuant to LR 10-5(b), sealing its Opposition (Dkt. #145) to 17 Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and related exhibits and declarations. On March 20, 18 2011, the court entered a Protective Order (Dkt. #39) to facilitate the parties’ discovery exchanges in 19 this case. On May 24, 2012, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #99) approving the parties stipulated 20 amendment to the Protective Order. Plaintiffs assert that the Opposition (Dkt. #145) and its related 21 attachments (Dkt. ##146, 147) should remain under seal because they contain confidential information 22 that should not be publicly available. Specifically, the information relates to the development and 23 operation of the proprietary iDEN and QChat systems, including how devices that use such technology 24 operate. 25 In the Ninth Circuit, it is well-established that the “fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence 26 of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News v. United States District 27 Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999). However, where a party opposing disclosure shows 28 compelling reasons for limiting access to litigation documents and information produced during 1 discovery and attached to dispositive motions, the materials may be filed under seal. See Kamakana v. 2 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court finds Plaintiff has stated 3 compelling reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of documents filed in connection with the 4 Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. #144) is GRANTED. 7 Dated this 24th day of March, 2014. 8 9 10 11 _________________________________________ PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?