Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00426/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00426-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK &

RABKIN, a California professional

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., an Ohio

corporation; and DOES 1 through 40,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-426 CW

ORDER ADDRESSING 

MOTION TO SEAL

The parties have filed a stipulated miscellaneous

administrative request pursuant to Local Rule 79-5 to seal portions

of certain documents previously filed in the public docket as

attachments to Defendant Total Technology, Inc.'s Notice of

Removal, including the Complaint, First Amended Complaint and

Answer, which reveal confidential business information involving a

third party. The parties suggest that the Court seal each entire

document and either allow them to file a Second Amended Complaint

and responsive pleadings for the public record, or, in the

alternative, allow them to file redacted public versions. In order

to minimize the amount of material under seal, the Court finds that

Case 4:06-cv-00426-CW Document 28 Filed 05/15/06 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

the solution most consistent with Rule 79-5 is to seal the

documents and allow the parties to file redacted public copies. 

However, the parties have not submitted proposed amended or

redacted versions of the documents they seek to seal. Before the

Court can rule on the motion to seal, the parties must submit

proposed redacted versions so that the Court can confirm that the

proposed sealing order is sufficiently narrowly tailored. The

parties must do so within one week of this order. In the meantime,

the Court will direct the Clerk temporarily to place the entire

Notice of Removal under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/15/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00426-CW Document 28 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2