Microsoft Corporation v. A&s Electronics, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03570

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{103}} Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; Directing Parties to Review Sealing Rules and Supplement Motions to Seal. Motion to Seal filed by 10/28/2016. Supplementary materials filed 10/28/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 9 Case No. 15-cv-03570-YGR Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED 11 DOCUMENT; DIRECTING PARTIES TO A&S ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL., REVIEW SEALING RULES AND SUPPLEMENT 12 MOTIONS TO SEAL Northern District of California Defendants. United States District Court 13 Dkt. No. 103 14 15 Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation filed a version of its Supporting Statement in Support of 16 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 94 in this matter. That document was 17 subsequently locked at Microsoft's request as filed in error. Microsoft then filed a redacted 18 version of the document at Docket No. 102. 19 The motion (Dkt. No. 103) to remove Docket No. 94 is DENIED. The document is and 20 shall remain locked on the docket due to the filing error. 21 The correct way to cure this filing error was to make an administrative motion to seal the 22 unredacted version of the separate statement, so that both a redacted/public version and a 23 complete, unredacted version of the separate statement are part of the Court's records. Microsoft 24 is ORDERED to cure this error by filing a properly supported Motion to Seal no later than October 25 28, 2016. 26 The Court further notes that Microsoft's administrative motion to seal in filed in 27 connection with its pending motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 80) failed to provide 28 sufficient support for sealing all the materials sought to be sealed. Likewise, the administrative 1 motion to seal filed by A&S Electronics (for information designated by both Microsoft and A&S) 2 failed to provide sufficient support. (Dkt. No. 96.) 3 The Civil Local Rules require that a motion to seal include: 4 A declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or 5 portions thereof, are sealable. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to 6 establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable. 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5 d(1)(A) (emphasis supplied). The Rules go on to provide that, if a party submits a 8 document for filing under seal that was designated as confidential by the opposing party, the 9 designating party must file a declaration in establishing that the document should be filed under 10 seal within four days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Civ. L.R. 79- 11 5(e)(1). Here, non-moving designating parties failed to file declarations within four days and the 12 declarations submitted with the moving papers are inadequate. In either situation, the declarations Northern District of California United States District Court 13 must provide a basis for sealing that meets that standard applicable to the underlying motion, in 14 this case the higher "compelling reasons" standard applicable to motions for summary judgment. 15 Therefore, each attorney for each party is ORDERED to submit a declaration indicating that 16 they have reviewed and understand the Civil Local Rule 79-5. Further, each party shall submit 17 any supporting declarations necessary to meet the standard for sealing any documents they have 18 designated for sealing in connection with the pending motions to seal. These supplementary 19 materials are due no later than October 28, 2016. Failure to provide sufficient support of sealing 20 will result in denial of the motion to seal. 21 This terminates Docket No. 103. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 26, 2016 24 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 26 27 28 2