Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corporation

Filing 355

ORDER GRANTING plaintiff/counter-defendant's 285 , 308 , AND 316 Motions seal certain exhibits/appendix. FURTHER ORD GRANTING defendant/counter-claimant's # 354 Motion for leave to seal certain exhibits. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/28/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Nevada
corporation,

10
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
11
v.
12
13

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION
CORPORATION, a Massachusetts
corporation,

14
Defendant and Counterclaimant
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-CV-00698-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Before the court are plaintiff and counter-defendant Server Technology, Inc.’s (“STI”)

17

motion to seal certain exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment

18

(Doc. #285); motion to seal exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant and counter-claimant

19

American Power Conversion Corp.’s (“APC”) motion for summary judgment (Doc. #308); and

20

motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316). Also before the court is APC’s motion for leave to seal

21

certain exhibits. Doc. #354.

22

As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public

23

access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.

24

1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that

25

presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are

26

also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

1

(9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

2

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

3

disclosure.” Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)

4

(internal citations omitted).

5

Here, in this patent infringement action, the court has entered a protective order governing

6

documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties’ internal research and development.

7

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the

8

various exhibits contain information that is designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential”

9

under the protective order. Therefore, the court finds that the parties have satisfied their burden to

10

show compelling reasons for filing the various exhibits and documents under seal.

11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff/counter-defendant’s motion seal certain

13

exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. #285); motion to seal

14

exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant/counter-claimant’s motion for summary judgment

15

(Doc. #308); and motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316) are GRANTED.

16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant/counter-claimant’s motion for leave to seal
certain exhibits (Doc. #354) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

20
21
22

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26

2