Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07303/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE 

P.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRADEMARK ENGINE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-07303-MMC 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; 

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS; 

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 79

Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' 

Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Related Exhibits," filed April 16, 

2018. Defendants have filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in 

support of and in opposition to the administrative motion, the Court rules as follows.

Under the Local Rules of this District, a party who seeks leave to file under seal a 

document or portions thereof must establish the material sought to be filed under seal is 

"privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under law," 

and any such request "must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 

material." See Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

Here, plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal the entirety of their "Opposition to 

Defendants' Trademark Engine LLC and Travis Crabtree's Motion for Sanctions," as well 

as the entirety of five declarations and eight exhibits submitted in support of the 

opposition. Plaintiffs contend said filings should be filed under seal "to protect the safety 

and security of the certain individuals described in the unredacted versions of the 

Opposition" (see Pls.' Admin. Mot. at 2:6-9), an argument that, at best, would only apply 

Case 3:17-cv-07303-MMC Document 86 Filed 04/24/18 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

to certain portions of the plaintiffs' submissions.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' administrative motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice,

and plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than seven days 

from the date of this order, either: (1) an opposition to defendants' sanctions motion, as 

well as any evidence in support thereof; or (2) a renewed administrative motion to file 

under seal, in conformity with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1), and in which plaintiffs seek 

leave to file under seal only those portions of their opposition, declarations and/or exhibits 

plaintiffs contend are confidential or otherwise entitled to protection under law.

Lastly, the deadline for defendants to file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the 

motion for sanctions is hereby EXTENDED; defendants' reply shall be filed no later than

seven days following the date on which plaintiffs serve defendants with their opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07303-MMC Document 86 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 2