Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01728-20/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 PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF

Re: Dkt. No. 150

Before the Court is the deferred portion of plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal," filed August 5, 2016. By order filed August 12, 2016, the Court deferred 

ruling on the requested sealing of Exhibits 40, 41 and 45 to the Supplemental Declaration 

of Drew A. Robertson, as well as pages 235, 240 and 349-365 of Exhibit 53 to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Drew A. Robertson. In so doing, the Court found the 

showing made by plaintiff, the designating party, was insufficient, and afforded plaintiff 

leave to file, no later than August 19, 2016, a supplemental declaration to establish what 

portions, if any, of said exhibits are confidential and not previously filed in the public 

record. On August 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration, which declaration 

addresses only the propriety of filing under seal portions of Exhibit 40. Having read and 

considered the supplemental declaration, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal 

Exhibits 41 and 45, as well as pages 235, 240 and 349-365 of Exhibit 53, the motion is 

hereby DENIED, as plaintiff, the designating party, has not addressed in its supplemental 

declaration the propriety of filing under seal any such exhibit or portion thereof.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file said exhibits and pages in the public record, 

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 168 Filed 08/25/16 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

no later than seven days after the date of this order, the entirety of Exhibits 41, 45 and 

53. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(2).

2. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal the 

entirety of Exhibit 40, the motion is hereby DENIED, as plaintiff, in its supplemental 

declaration, no longer asserts the entirety thereof is properly filed under seal, and neither 

defendant nor non-party SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk") has filed a response to the 

instant administrative motion or to the supplemental showing made by plaintiff.1

3. To the extent plaintiff's administrative motion seeks leave to file under seal 

portions of Exhibit 40, specifically, the portions identified in ¶ 5 of its supplemental 

declaration, filed August 19, 2016, the motion is hereby GRANTED, plaintiff having 

shown such portions are properly filed under seal.

Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no earlier than four days 

and no later than ten days from the date of this order, a redacted version of Exhibit 40, 

specifically, a version in which only the material identified in ¶ 5 of its supplemental 

declaration is redacted therefrom,. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1According to plaintiff, Exhibit 40 includes references to material designated 

confidential by defendant, as well as to material designated confidential by SanDisk.

Case 3:15-cv-01728-MMC Document 168 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2