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

Filing 159

ORDER Granting 156 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. #156)

12
13
14
15

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply
Under Seal (Dkt. #156). The court has considered the Motion.
Defendants seek an order, pursuant to LR 10-5(b), sealing their Reply (Dkt. #154) in support of

16

Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 20, 2011, the court entered a Protective Order (Dkt. #39) to

17

facilitate the parties’ discovery exchanges in this case. On May 24, 2012, the court entered an Order

18

(Dkt. #99) approving the parties stipulated amendment to the Protective Order. Defendants represent

19

that the documents they seek to maintain under seal relate to the development of the proprietary iDEN

20

and QChat technology, how iDEN and QChat operate, and how devices that use the technology operate.

21

In the Ninth Circuit, it is well-established that the “fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence

22

of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News v. United States District

23

Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999). However, where a party opposing disclosure shows

24

compelling reasons for limiting access to litigation documents and information produced during

25

discovery and attached to dispositive motions, the materials may be filed under seal. See Kamakana v.

26

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court finds Defendants have

27

stated compelling reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of documents filed in connection with

28

their Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Seal (Dkt. #156) is GRANTED.

3

Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.

4
5
6
7

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2