Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ON COMMAND VIDEO 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DIGITAL INFINITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-2110 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO

SUBSTITUTE DOCUMENTS

On January 29, 2007, pursuant to instructions from the court, Defendants lodged a motion for

administrative relief to substitute properly redacted documents for improperly redacted documents

that had previously been filed. The documents at issue are:

1

1.) Defendants’ Motion To Compel Documents Re Demand1; Supporting Memorandum

Of Points & Authorities (former Docket No. 64, “main document”); and

2.) Defendants’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions Against OCV and/or Its Counsel, Jointly

& Severally Re Refusal to Produce Demand1 Documents; Supporting Memorandum

Of Points & Authorities (former Docket No. 66, “main document”).

It had come to the court’s attention that the version of the redacted motion to compel that was

originally e-filed, while appearing to redact certain information, only superficially masked the

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 76 Filed 01/31/07 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

The court instructed Defendants to initially lodge, rather than file, the motion so as to 2

allow the court to remove the documents from the publicly available record before it was made public

that the information was not actually redacted, thus reducing the risk that information designated

“Confidential” might be accessed by anyone not authorized to access the information.

ORDER, page 2

information. The information could still be retrieved by simply cutting and pasting the redacted

portion from the e-filed document into a word processor. Thus the court instructed Defendants to

lodge the aforementioned motion. Defendants lodged the motion, seeking relief for the redacted 2

motion for sanctions they filed as well as the redacted motion to compel. The court has now

removed the improperly redacted documents from the court’s electronic court filing system. 

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall promptly: 1) e-file their motion for

administrative relief to substitute documents, and 2) submit to the court via email to

PVTpdf@cand.uscourts.gov properly redacted versions of former Docket Nos. 64 & 66

(memoranda of points and authorities only). The clerk of the court shall attach to Docket Nos. 64

and 66 as the “main documents” the properly redacted documents submitted by Defendants. 

Dated: 1/31/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 76 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2