Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00333/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00333-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COOK INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-00333 JSW

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART

THE PARTIES’ JOINT

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

MAINTAIN PORTIONS OF THE

CONTRACT (EXHIBIT A TO THE

COMPLAINT) UNDER SEAL

The Court has received and considered the parties Joint Administrative Motion to

Maintain Portions of the Contract (Exhibit A to the Complaint) Under Seal. Having considered

the motion and reviewed the relevant portions of the Contract, the Court shall GRANT IN

PART AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART the motion.

The Court finds the parties have made a sufficient showing to demonstrate that the

portions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.10, as well as Exhibits C and F to the

Contract should be maintained under seal.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the request to file under seal Paragraph

1(F) and Exhibits A and B. First, the substance of Paragraph 1(F) appears to be addressed in the

body of the Complaint and it is therefore unclear to the Court why it should be sealed. See

Complaint ¶ 95. 

Second, these portions of the contract purportedly relate to the scope of the license. 

Case 3:06-cv-00333-JSW Document 47 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

However, it is unclear to the Court why the scope of the license must remain confidential. 

Accordingly, the Court shall provide the parties an opportunity to make a further, and more

detailed showing, as to why that information would qualify for sealing under Local Rule 79-5.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have until May 5, 2006, to

file a renewed motion demonstrating why paragraph 1(F) and Exhibits A and B to the Contract

must remain under seal. Until that time, those portions of the Contract shall remain under seal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties agreement, the Clerk shall

unseal Docket Nos. 3, 4, 24, 36 and 39. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00333-JSW Document 47 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2