Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rackable Systems, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-3561 PJH 

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT REQUEST TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

 SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

At the April 11, 2007 hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and

summary adjudication, the court DENIED Supermicro’s requests to file numerous

documents under seal based on its failure to comply with the procedural requirements of

Civil L.R. 79-5 and to satisfy the “compelling reasons” threshold. See Kamakana v. City of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court also DENIED Rackable’s requests to

file documents under seal based on its failure to demonstrate compelling reasons.

Following the hearing, on April 18, 2007, the parties submitted a joint request to file

certain documents under seal, which Supermicro then revised further pursuant to its April

23, 2007, letter to the court. The court will grant the joint request, as revised by

Supermicro’s letter, with the exception of material concerning the identification of

Supermicro customers, and Supermicro invoices that identify Supermicro customers. See

Ostapuk Decl., Exh. I; Ostapuk Decl., Exh. T, at 34-35. This material, which Supermicro

contends constitutes “trade secret” information, does not satisfy the high threshold set forth

by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana. 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 242 Filed 04/25/07 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

Accordingly, only the following exhibits or portions of exhibits previously filed by the

parties will be filed under seal:

1. Pages 24-27, 38, 45, 66-67, 70, and 72 of Exhibit T to the Ostapuk Decl. filed 

in support of Rackable’s motion for summary adjudication (Docket No. 193);

2. The pages following Tab 905 in Exhibit C, and pages 72, 74, 75, 194-196,

199, and 200 of Exhibit F to the Corbett Decl. filed in support of Supermicro’s opposition to

Rackable’s motion adjudication (Docket No. 209);

3. Exhibit J, and pages 195-96 of Exhibit M to the Ostapuk Decl. filed in support 

of Rackable’s reply (Docket No. 235);

4. Pages 34-35, 45, of Exhibit 2 to the Yamashita Decl. filed in support of 

Supermicro’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 183); and

5. Exhibits 30-32 to the Casamiquela Decl. filed in support of Rackable’s 

opposition.

Additionally, the parties are ORDERED to re-file in the public record within seven

days of this order, unredacted versions of all papers previously filed in support of the

parties’ motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, with the exception of

only those documents listed above.

Finally, all documents previously submitted in envelopes for sealing will be recycled

by the court. Should the parties wish to retain those documents and/or dispose of the

materials in another manner, they may contact chambers and pick up the documents no

later than seven days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 242 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 2