Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728-15/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLER, KAPLAN, ARASE & CO, LLP,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01728-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFERRED 

PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; 

DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT

Re: Dkt. No. 117

By order filed July 6, 2016, the Court deferred in part ruling on defendant's 

"Administrative Motion to File Under Seal," filed June 10, 2016. Specifically, the Court 

deferred ruling on defendant's request to file under seal Exhibit K to the Declaration of 

Stephen J. Tully ("Exhibit K"), as Exhibit K had been designated confidential both by 

plaintiff and by non-party SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk"),1and the administrative 

motion had not been served on SanDisk; the Court directed defendant to serve the 

administrative motion on SanDisk, which defendant subsequently did. Additionally, the 

Court deferred ruling on defendant's request to file under seal portions of Exhibit M to the 

Declaration of Stephen J. Tully ("Exhibit M"), as well as portions of defendant's Reply 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Reply Memorandum"), for 

the reason that said documents include material contained in Exhibit K.

On July 15, 2016, SanDisk filed a response, in which SanDisk states it "does not 

believe that any portion of Exhibit K . . . contains material that needs to be sealed." (See

 

1

In its response to defendant's administrative motion, plaintiff asserts that portions 

of Exhibit K are confidential.

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 139 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

SanDisk's Statement at 2:5-6.) Having read and considered the deferred portion of 

defendant's administrative motion and the responses filed by plaintiff and SanDisk, the 

Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent defendant seeks leave to file under seal the entirety of Exhibit K, 

the motion is hereby DENIED, as neither SanDisk nor plaintiff have shown, or even 

asserted, that the entirety of Exhibit K comprises confidential material. As to the following 

portions of Exhibit K, however, the motion is hereby GRANTED, as plaintiff has made a 

sufficient showing as to the sealability of those pages and lines:

a. Page 230, lines 17-20

b. Page 231, lines 1, 7-8, and 17

c. Page 232, lines 1 and 20-22

d. Page 233, lines 3-4

e. Page 300, lines 4-7 and 14-15

f. Page 301, lines 9-10 and 16

g. Page 303, lines 7 and 25

h. Page 304, lines 11-12 and 19

i. Page 305, line 20

j. Page 306, lines 2, 14 and 20

k. Page 307, lines 4, 9, 18 and 22

l. Page 310, lines 22-24

m. Page 311, line 6

Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than ten days 

from the date of this order, a version of Exhibit K in which the confidential portions 

identified above are redacted.

2. To the extent defendant seeks to file under seal portions of Exhibit M and 

portions of its Reply Memorandum, the motion is hereby DENIED, as the subject portions 

do not discuss or reference the material plaintiff has shown to be confidential. Defendant 

is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than ten days from the date of 

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 139 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

this order, the entirety of Exhibit M and its Reply Memorandum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 139 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3