Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00646/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00646-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

POLARITY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-0646 EMC

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

(Docket No. 30)

Defendant Diversified Technologies, Inc. has filed a request for leave to file under seal its

covenant not to sue Plaintiff Polarity, Inc. for infringement of the ‘610 patent. Diversified states that

there is good cause for filing under seal because the covenant “contains product identifiers and

names denoted in documents that were provided and references in response to interrogatories, and

which were designated as confidential by . . . Polarity [pursuant] to the parties’ stipulated protective

order.” Admin. Req. at 2.

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Polarity was required to file, within five days of

Diversified’s administrative request, “a declaration establishing that the designated information is

sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). “If the designating party does not file its responsive declaration as

required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” 

Id. Diversified filed its administrative request on August 25, 2006. Polarity did not file a

declaration within five days thereafter or as of the date of this order.

Case 3:06-cv-00646-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Polaris shall have until September 19, 2006 to file such declaration. If it fails to do so, the

Court shall deny the request to file under seal. The parties are cautioned that every effort should be

made to narrowly tailor sealing, including redactions. Any sealing must satisfy the requirements of

Local Rule 79-5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00646-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2