ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PROTECTED MATERIALS SHOULD NOT BE UNSEALED

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

The Court previously entered a stipulated protective order, Docket No. 44, to enforce the confidentiality of certain information submitted by Dropbox in its various declarations. See Docket No. 47, Ex. A; Docket No. 54. As a result of this protective order, portions of various filings are under seal. Defendant Krishna Viramontes has requested that the protective order be lifted and the sealed materials be unsealed. Docket No. 57 at 9 n.1. The Court has received a letter from Dropbox requesting notice and opportunity to be heard regarding any unsealing.

The Government and Dropbox are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the sealed declarations and briefs should not be unsealed. They are further ORDERED TO SHO CAUSE why the Order Denying Defendant Krishna Viramontes' Motion to Suppress Evidence should not be filed without redactions and, if so, what redactions would be proper. The order denying suppression will be separately served on the parties (via U.S. Mail) and shall be subject to the terms of the protective order pending the resolution of the instant matter. The Government and Dropbox shall file responses no later than November 24, 2017. Unless the Government and Dropbox hold significantly diverging positions, they are encouraged to file a joint response with any disagreements indicated therein. Mr. Viramontes shall file a response no later than December 1, 2017. Responses shall not exceed 7 pages.

The Government shall serve this order and the Order Denying Defendant Krishna Viramontes' Motion to Suppress Evidence on Dropbox no later than November 17, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.