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)
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?