Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01225-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

* E-filed 2/20/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

3M COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE KANBAR, MK ENTERPRISES,

INC., ROLLIT, LLC, AND REX PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CV 06-01225 HRL

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Re: Docket Nos. 110, 250, 304, and 328

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5 and 7-11, both parties moved to file certain documents

under seal. The original motions did not contain the proper supporting declarations and the

parties were ordered to show cause why those documents should not be made part of the public

record. See Docket Nos. 380-383. Based on the parties' responses, the court orders as follows: 

//

//

//

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 446 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Motion to File Under Seal: Docket No. 250

The following documents were initially submitted under seal by Plaintiff pursuant to

Defendants' designation of the documents as confidential: 

1. The unredacted version of 3M's Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 253).

2. Exhibit 1 to the Adkisson Declaration in Support of 3M's Motion to Compel.

(Docket No. 254).

3. Exhibit 14 to the Adkisson Declaration in Support of 3M's Motion to Compel.

(Docket No. 254).

Defendants now advise that they do not oppose filing in the public record for the first

two of these documents. See Docket No. 401. Therefore, the court ORDERS Docket No. 253

and Exhibit 1 to Docket No. 254 to be filed in the public record. Plaintiff shall RESUBMIT

these documents for filing in electronic form no later than February 29, 2008. 

With respect to Exhibit 14 to Docket No. 254, Defendants have shown good cause for

filing under seal. A redacted version of this document has already been filed in the public

record. The Clerk shall file the original document under seal. Plaintiff's Motion to file

Documents under Seal [Docket No. 250] is thus GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Motion to File Under Seal: Docket No. 304

The following documents were initially submitted under seal by Plaintiff pursuant to its

own designation of the documents as confidential: 

1. Pages 1, 6, 7, and 9-16 to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion To Compel. (Docket

No. 300).

2. Exhibits 1, 9, 15, and 16 to the Chaplin Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's

Opposition. (Docket No. 301).

Plaintiff has now shown good cause to file all of these documents under seal. See

Docket No. 399. A redacted version of these documents has already been filed in the public

record. The Clerk shall file the original documents under seal. Plaintiff's Motion [Docket No.

304] is thus GRANTED. 

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 446 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Motions to File Under Seal: Docket Nos. 110, 328

Defendants did not file supplemental declarations or otherwise respond to two of the

Orders to Show Cause: Docket Number 380 (dealing with Motion to Seal [Docket No. 110])

and Docket Number 383 (dealing with Motion to Seal [Docket No. 328]). Both orders

specifically stated that if the court did not receive supplemental declarations by November 9,

2007, then the underlying documents would be made part of the public record. 

Therefore, the motions to file under seal are DENIED and the court ORDERS the

following to be filed in the public record: 

1. Pages 2 and 3 to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to

Compel. (Docket No. 107).

2. Exhibits 3, 4, and 20 to Leviton Declaration in Support of Opposition. (Docket

No. 108).

3. Pages 2-4 and 7 to Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to

Compel. (Docket No. 331).

Plaintiff shall resubmit the unredacted versions of Docket Numbers 107, 108 and 331 for filing

in electronic form no later than February 29, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 446 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

John Cameron Adkisson jca@fr.com, mla@fr.com 

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com, njohnson@fr.com 

Ann N. Cathcart Chaplin cathcartchaplin@fr.com, lindstedt@fr.com 

Robert Reeves Cross rcross@sideman.com, jcuago@sideman.com,

ldinglasan@sideman.com, mthomas@sideman.com 

Michael L. Gannon mgannon@mmm.com 

Michelle Lee Landry mlandry@kanbar.com 

Joel D. Leviton leviton@fr.com, lindner@fr.com 

David James Miclean miclean@fr.com, arceo@fr.com 

Kevin H. Rhodes krhodes@mmm.com 

Constance Jiun-Yee Yu cyu@sideman.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 2/20/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-01225-JW Document 446 Filed 02/20/08 Page 4 of 4