Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

* E-filed 11/5/07 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

3M COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE KANBAR, MK ENTERPRISES,

INC., ROLLIT, LLC, AND REX PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CV 06-01225 HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE

PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD

Re: Docket No. 110

Civil Local Rule 79-5 states that "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." Rule 79-5 further states that "a stipulation, or

a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not

suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal." (emphasis added)

The parties stipulated to having pages 2 and 3 of Docket Number 107 (Plaintiff's

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel) and Exhibits 3, 4, and 20 of

Docket Number 108 (Leviton Declaration in Support of Opposition) filed under seal. Plaintiff

declared that those portions should be filed under seal because they were designated by

Defendants as confidential. This is insufficient under Rule 79-5. 

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 380 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendants are directed to submit by November 9, 2007 either 1) the requisite

declarations showing why the documents (or portions thereof) should be filed under seal, or 2) a

statement of non-opposition to the documents being made part of the public record. 

If court does not receive the necessary declaration on that date, these documents will be

made part of the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/2/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 380 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

John Cameron Adkisson jca@fr.com, mla@fr.com 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

Ann N. Cathcart Chaplin cathcartchaplin@fr.com, lindstedt@fr.com 

Robert Reeves Cross rcross@sideman.com, jcuago@sideman.com,

ldinglasan@sideman.com, mthomas@sideman.com 

Michael L. Gannon mgannon@mmm.com 

Michelle Lee Landry mlandry@kanbar.com 

Joel D. Leviton leviton@fr.com, lindner@fr.com 

David James Miclean miclean@fr.com, arceo@fr.com 

Kevin H. Rhodes krhodes@mmm.com 

Constance Jiun-Yee Yu cyu@sideman.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 11/5/2007 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 380 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3