Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06721/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06721-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELY HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

O’KEEFFE’S, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06721-JCS 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 114, 134, 150, 156

Plaintiffs Ely Holding Limited and Greenlite Glass Systems Inc. moved to file under seal 

portions of their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and documents submitted 

therewith on the basis that Defendant O’Keeffe’s Inc. d/b/a Safti First (“Safti”) and two 

subpoenaed non-parties designated documents as confidential under the protective order in this 

case. See dkt. 114. Despite Plaintiffs serving their administrative motion on the non-parties, see 

dkts. 116, 123, 124, neither Safti nor the non-parties filed a responsive declaration establishing 

reasons for sealing pursuant Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file 

under seal is therefore DENIED, and Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the documents at issue in the 

public record no earlier than April 20, 2020 and no later than April 27, 2020. See Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(2).

Plaintiffs moved to file under seal portions of their reply brief on the same motion and 

Exhibit 8 to the accompanying declaration of Jaimin Shah based on the same entities’ designations 

of confidentiality. Dkt. 134; see also dkts. 134, 135 (proofs of service). Again, no responsive 

declaration was filed. That motion is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiffs moved to file under seal portions of their third amended complaint based on the 

same entities’ designations of confidentiality. Dkt. 150. Again, no responsive declaration was 

filed. That motion is therefore DENIED.

Case 3:18-cv-06721-JCS Document 159 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Most recently, Plaintiffs moved to file exhibits to a joint discovery letter brief under seal 

based on Safti’s designations of confidentiality. Dkt. 156. Once again, no responsive declaration 

was filed, and the motion to file under seal is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file all of the documents at issue in the administrative motions 

addressed above in the public record no earlier than April 20, 2020 and no later than April 27, 

2020. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06721-JCS Document 159 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2