Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04180/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04180-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAMPION PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS,

INC., d.b.a. CHAMPION NUTRITION

Plaintiff,

 v.

MET-RX SUBSTRATE TECHNOLOGY,

INC. and NBTY, INC.,

Defendants /

No. 04-4180 MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO BAR

DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS DUE

TO UNCLEAN HANDS; DIRECTIONS TO

CLERK

Before the Court is plaintiff’s administrative motion, filed December 30, 2005, to file

under seal an unredacted version of the Declaration of Randall B. Bateman in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Bar Defendants’ Counterclaims Due to Unclean

Hands. Plaintiff represents that the unredacted version of the above-referenced declaration

contains information that has been designated by defendants as confidential.

Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any

material designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion

for a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). “Within five days thereafter, the designating

party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing

order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” Id. “If the designating party

Case 3:04-cv-04180-MMC Document 96 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or

proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Id.

Here, the designating parties, defendants, have not filed a responsive declaration

within the time provided under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s administrative motion is hereby DENIED, and the Clerk of the

Court is hereby DIRECTED to file the Declaration of Randall B. Bateman in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Bar Defendants’ Counterclaims Due to Unclean

Hands in the public record. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04180-MMC Document 96 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2