Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TASION COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., CV 13-1803-EMC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150527a09 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 26, 2015
Latest Update: May 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS RE MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT OR SUPPLEMENT UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 79-5 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Portions Of Motion For Leave To File a Fourth Amended Complaint or Supplement and Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To Local Rule 79-5, and good cause appearing therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. IT IS HEREBY ORD
More

ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS RE MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT OR SUPPLEMENT UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 79-5

Having considered Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Portions Of Motion For Leave To File a Fourth Amended Complaint or Supplement and Supporting Documents Under Seal Pursuant To Local Rule 79-5, and good cause appearing therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the following documents shall remain sealed in accordance with Local Rule 79-5:

Document Name Portion or Entirety Sealed UBN20219, attached as Ex. 2 to Himmelfarb Entirely Sealed Decl. UBN20154, attached as Ex. 3 to Himmelfarb Entirely Sealed Decl. UBN20159, attached as Ex. 4 to Himmelfarb Entirely Sealed Decl. UBN20155, attached as Ex. 5 to Himmelfarb Entirely Sealed Decl.

Although the exhibits attached to the Himmelfarb declaration shall be filed under seal, the Court finds that the redactions made by Plaintiffs in their motion for leave to amend and in the Himmelfarb declaration are overbroad and not sufficiently narrowly tailored. The parties shall meet and confer to refine the redactions so that only that information which reflects confidential commercial information shall be redacted. For example, the Court sees no need to redact the fact that Ubiquiti's upper management was or was not aware of the results of the UV testing on the product at issue. Nor does the Court see the need to redact the official title for Mr. Huang or what his general role was with respect to the product at issue. These examples are not exhaustive.

The parties shall jointly submit proposed redactions (more narrowly tailored) for the motion to amend and Himmelfarb declaration within one week of the date of this order. The parties are further advised that their future filings should take into account the Court's ruling herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer