Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07303/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07303-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

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

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE 

P.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRADEMARK ENGINE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-07303-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; 

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS

Re: Dkt. No. 87

Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' 

Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions," filed April 24, 2018. Defendants have 

filed opposition thereto. Having read and considered the parties' respective written 

submissions, the Court rules as follows.

By the instant motion, plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal, and to preclude

defendants from receiving a copy of, the unredacted version of their opposition to 

defendants' motion for sanctions, in which version plaintiffs set forth details regarding a

telephone call plaintiffs received from an "anonymous caller." (See Pls.' Adm. Mot. at 

2:15.)

1

 Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority in support of their argument that they should not 

be required to serve defendants with the unredacted version of their opposition. See Civil 

L.R. 7-3(a) (providing opposition to motion must be "filed and served"). Moreover, 

plaintiffs fail to show the subject information is entitled to be filed under seal.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' administrative motion is hereby DENIED.

 

1

The redacted version of the opposition, which has been filed in the public record 

and served on defendants, states plaintiffs received a call from an anonymous person 

and discloses some of the statements such person assertedly made to plaintiffs.

Case 3:17-cv-07303-MMC Document 99 Filed 05/09/18 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

If plaintiffs wish the Court to consider the unredacted version of their opposition to 

defendants' motion for sanctions, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file it in the public 

record, no later than seven days from the date of this order. If plaintiffs fail to timely file 

the unredacted version of the opposition, the Court will consider only the redacted 

version previously filed in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07303-MMC Document 99 Filed 05/09/18 Page 2 of 2