Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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 See FED.R.CIV. PRO. 26(c);see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 1

F.2d 470, 476 (9 Cir. 1992) (“Broad allegations of harm, however, unsubstantiated by specific th

examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”)

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARDONET, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

IBM CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-6637 RMW (PVT)

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE RE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN

INFORMATION DESIGNATED

CONFIDENTIAL BY PLAINTIFF 

On January 3, 2008, Defendant filed an Administrative Motion to File under Seal Portions of

Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses To Interrogatories. As noted in Defendant’s

motion to seal, it was incumbent upon Plaintiff as the designating party to file, within five days, a

declaration establishing that the designated documents are sealable, or else withdraw the designation 1

of confidentiality. See CIVIL L.R. 79-5(d). As of the date of this order more than a month has

elapsed and Plaintiff has filed neither a declaration establishing that the designated documents are

sealable, nor any withdrawal of the designation of confidentiality. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2008, Plaintiff shall file either a

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 85 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

withdrawal of the designation of confidentiality, or else a declaration showing cause why the

information should not be made part of the public record. In addition to addressing Plaintiff’s failure

to timely comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), the showing must address separately each portion of

the materials that Plaintiff contends warrants protection. See CIVIL L.R. 79-5, and commentary

thereto. 

Dated: 2/8/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 85 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 2