Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06930/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06930-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENDAVO, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRICE F(X) AG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06930-RS (KAW)

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 115

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff Vendavo, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under 

seal. (Dkt. No. 115.) The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice. First, 

Plaintiff fails to comply with the Civil Local Rules filing requirements, which requires that the 

administrative motion be accompanied by: "(D) An unredacted version of the document sought to 

be filed under seal." (N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1).) Plaintiff's administrative motion to 

file under seal contains only the declaration in support of the sealing motion and the proposed 

order. (See Dkt. No2. 115-1, 115-2.) While Plaintiff has provided a hard copy of the unredacted 

documents, the unredacted documents must also be filed under seal on the docket.

Second, Plaintiff's motion to file under seal is not narrowly tailored. For example, Plaintiff 

seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit A, including its general objections and responses to 

instructions and definitions, as well as responses that appear to identify information in the publicly 

filed complaint. (See Exh. A at 13.) Likewise, Plaintiff seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit B, 

despite only identifying "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only Section" on pages 7-13 and 

14-53.

Third, Plaintiff fails to adequately explain why the information is sealable. Plaintiff states 

that the exhibits contain "trade secret information, including descriptions of Vendavo's highly 

Case 3:17-cv-06930-RS Document 117 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

proprietary source code, identification of source code by lines, and identification of the types of 

java packages Vendavo includes in its source code." (Oliver Decl. ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 115-1.) It is not 

clear, for example, how the information on Exhibit B, pages 14-48, fall under these categories, as 

they appear to be descriptions of features in Vendavo software, with no source code described. 

The Court requires additional information as to why each of the exhibits contains sealable 

information.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to file under seal without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to file under seal by April 5, 2019; the renewed motion must 

be narrowly tailored and comply with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06930-RS Document 117 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 2