Filed: Mar. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court are plaintiff and counter-defendant Server Technology, Inc.'s ("STI") motion to seal certain exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. #285); motion to seal exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant and counter-claimant American Power Conversion Corp.'s ("APC") motion for summary judgment (Doc. #308); and motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316). Also before the court is APC's motion for leave to seal certai
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court are plaintiff and counter-defendant Server Technology, Inc.'s ("STI") motion to seal certain exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. #285); motion to seal exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant and counter-claimant American Power Conversion Corp.'s ("APC") motion for summary judgment (Doc. #308); and motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316). Also before the court is APC's motion for leave to seal certain..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court are plaintiff and counter-defendant Server Technology, Inc.'s ("STI") motion to seal certain exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. #285); motion to seal exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant and counter-claimant American Power Conversion Corp.'s ("APC") motion for summary judgment (Doc. #308); and motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316). Also before the court is APC's motion for leave to seal certain exhibits. Doc. #354.
As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Here, in this patent infringement action, the court has entered a protective order governing documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties' internal research and development. The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the various exhibits contain information that is designated "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential" under the protective order. Therefore, the court finds that the parties have satisfied their burden to show compelling reasons for filing the various exhibits and documents under seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff/counter-defendant's motion seal certain exhibits attached in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. #285); motion to seal exhibits in support of its opposition to defendant/counter-claimant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #308); and motion to seal appendix (Doc. #316) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant/counter-claimant's motion for leave to seal certain exhibits (Doc. #354) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
