Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03125-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXCEL INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INDIVOS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-03-3125 MMC

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

EXTENDING TIME THAT REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE: MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS SHALL REMAIN SEALED

(Docket No. 403)

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time That

Report and Recommendation Re: Motion for Sanctions Shall Remain Sealed, filed

December 1, 2006. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the Court does not read Magistrate

Judge Spero’s November 21, 2006 temporary sealing order as addressing the potential for

embarrassment to plaintiffs. Rather, pursuant to said order, the parties are provided an

opportunity to “propose[ ] redactions” of “any confidential information entitled to protection.” 

(See Order to File Under Seal Court’s November 21, 2006 Order, filed November 21, 2006

at 1); see also Civil L.R. 79-5 (“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”). As plaintiffs have not established

that any portion of the November 21, 2006 report and recommendation contains

confidential information, plaintiffs have failed to set forth good cause for an extension of

Magistrate Judge Spero’s sealing order.

/ /

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 406 Filed 12/05/06 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

2

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an order requiring that the report and

recommendation remain sealed is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-03125-MMC Document 406 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2