Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07367/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07367-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

REARDEN COMMERCE, INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C06-7367 MHP

ORDER RE

BRIEFING ON

SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

The court has reviewed the briefing that has been submitted thus far in connection with

motions for summary judgment in the above matter and finds that the efforts are problematic.

First of all, there is a failure to adhere to the Civil Local Rules with respect to sealing such that the

motion papers themselves are replete with the redaction of matters which, upon inspection of the

unredacted documents, are neither trade secrets nor privileged. 

The parties are reminded that this is a public forum. Sealing is the exception and sealing

must comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5. A declaration must accompany the

submissions setting forth the reason for the redactions and the reasons must come within those

provided for in the Rule. A review of nearly all of the redactions shows that they do not meet the

requirements of the Rule. The fact that a party would like to keep something secret is not a reason

for secrecy. The redactions must be of material that is a protectable trade secret or privileged or

“otherwise entitled to protection under the law”. The redactions the court has reviewed are of

material that do not fall within these categories and “[a] stipulation, or a blanket protective order that

Case 5:06-cv-07367-LHK Document 147 Filed 06/06/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents

under seal.” Id. subpara.(a).

Defendant also has filed a memorandum of points and authorities that is double the page

limit permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-2. The court is aware that shortly before the filing plaintiff

requested leave to file an excess page memorandum and that counsel may have been close to the

deadline. However, having not received leave, counsel should have file a memorandum that

complies with the 25-page limit. Having reviewed the memorandum it is clear to the court that

defendant can say what needs to be said within that limit. This is not a monumental case or an

unusual one that requires extraordinary measures. The plethora of filings related to the production

of this motion--administrative motions to file under seal, other administrative motions to correct the

earlier ones related to mistaken redactions, motions for leave to file excess-page memoranda etc.--

create unnecessary work for counsel and the court.

Therefore, as to the memoranda and supporting documents filed, defendant shall refile 

documents that comply with the Local Civil Rules as discussed above. Any application to seal

documents shall be accompanied by a declaration spelling out the specific reasons for the redactions,

which shall be at a minimum, and newly redacted documents complying with the above instructions

shall be filed. Furthermore, defendant shall refile its memorandum not to exceed 25 pages and shall

not use unnecessary footnotes, reduced font or margins to accomplish this. 

If additional time is required to file, respond and reply the parties shall contact the

Courtroom Deputy for rescheduling. All filings shall comply with the District’s Civil Rules and with

the above order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 5, 2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 5:06-cv-07367-LHK Document 147 Filed 06/06/08 Page 2 of 2