Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

NORWOOD OPERATING COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BJ CRYSTAL, INC, a California corporation;

CASHMAN PHOTO ENTERPRISES OF

NEVADA, a Nevada corporation; CRYSTAL

MAGIC, INC., a Florida Corporation; U.C.

LASER, INC., a New Jersey corporation;

VITRO LASER GROUP U.S.A., INC., a

Nevada corporation; JIMAC MARKETING

INC., a Canadian corporation; CONCORD

INDUSTRIES, INC., a Connecticut

corporation; C. STIEFELMAYER GMBH &

Co. KG, a German limited partnership;

CERION GMBH, a German limited liability

company; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INC., a

Texas corporation; CRYSTAL CAPTURE

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited

liability company; G.W. PARTNERS

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California

corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Texas

corporation; VISIONS IN CRYSTAL, INC., a

California corporation; VITRO LASER

GMBH, a German limited liability company,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 /

Lead Case No. C 03-1179 JSW

Consolidated with No. C 03-3905 JSW

ORDER DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO MAKE A

SHOWING RE: PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

On May 12, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a miscellaneous administrative request to file under

seal its motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and exhibits to the declaration of 

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 216 Filed 07/15/05 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

Brian E. Mitchell in support of their motion. Plaintiffs’ asserted basis for the request is that

Defendants designated the documents in the exhibits and referenced in the motion as

confidential. Plaintiffs do not explain why the information is actually confidential. 

As a public forum, the Court will only entertain requests to seal that establish good cause

and are narrowly tailored to seal only the particular information that is genuinely privileged or

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise has a compelling need for confidentiality. Documents 

may not be filed under seal pursuant to blanket protective orders covering multiple documents. 

In addition, counsel should not attempt to seal entire pleadings or declarations without a

particularized showing explaining why the request could not be more narrowly tailored. Any 

order granting a request to seal shall direct the sealing of only those documents, pages, or if

practicable, those portions of documents or pages that contain the information requiring

confidentiality. All other portions of such documents shall remain in the public file. Civil L.R.

79-5(b) & cmt.

Because Plaintiffs are is relying on Defendants’ designation of the material as

confidential, Defendants are ORDERED to make a showing by no later than July 25, 2005 as to

why the motion and exhibits attached to the Mitchell Declaration should be filed under seal in

their entirety. If only portions of these documents actually contain confidential information,

particularly the motion, Defendants shall identify such portions and make a showing as to why

the specific potions of the documents should be filed under seal. The Court shall reserve ruling

on Plaintiffs’ request to file these documents under seal pending the receipt of Defendants’

response to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 216 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2