Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02353/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02353-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEALDASH OYJ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONTEXTLOGIC INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-02353-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 94

Before the Court is plaintiffs DealDash Oyj and DealDash Inc.’s (“DealDash”)

“Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,” filed February 16, 2019, whereby DealDash

seeks to file under seal Exhibit 2 to the “Declaration of Amy M. Bailey in Support of

DealDash’s Motion Under Civ. L.R. 6-3 to Extend the Expert Disclosure Deadline”

(“Exhibit 2”), which exhibit contains information designated confidential by defendant 

ContextLogic Inc. (“ContextLogic”). No response has been filed. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), where a party files a motion to file under seal 

material designated confidential by another party, the designating party is required to file 

within four days a declaration establishing such material is sealable. 

Here, although, as noted above, ContextLogic failed to file such a response, 

DealDash, in its motion, has adequately conveyed ContextLogic’s reason for designating 

a particular portion of Exhibit 2 as confidential, and the Court finds such reason sufficient 

to warrant sealing. 

Accordingly,

1. To the extent DealDash seeks to file under seal Page 7, lines 2-9 of Exhibit 

2, the motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Case 3:18-cv-02353-MMC Document 102 Filed 02/25/19 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

2. To the extent DealDash seeks to file under seal the remaining portions of 

Exhibit 2, the motion is hereby DENIED, there being no contention in the motion that 

such material has been designated confidential by any party or non-party, nor does such 

material otherwise appear to be appropriate for sealing. 

3. DealDash shall file, no later than March 1, 2019, a revised version of Exhibit 

2 in accordance with the above. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2019 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02353-MMC Document 102 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 2