Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wyatt Technology Corp. v. Malvern Instruments Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 30, 2008

WYATT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MALVERN INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION; DAVID DOLAK, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge

Assigned to: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson

[PROPOSED] ORDER

(Filed concurrently with Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order)

The parties, Plaintiff Wyatt Technology Corporation and Defendants Malvern Instruments Incorporated and David Dolak, through their attorneys of record, have agreed to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, filed on October 3, 2008. The Court finds the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order reasonable and appropriately tailored to protect the rights of the parties to keep confidential certain proprietary and commercially valuable information.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order shall be adopted as the order of this Court and shall govern the dissemination and use of information, documents, and things designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" by the parties. In entering this Order, however, the Court expressly cautions the parties that, at a minimum, good cause must be demonstrated to warrant sealing of any portion of the court file and denying public access to court proceedings. Indeed, in Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association, 504 F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit made clear that while a "good cause" standard applies to the sealing of documents filed in connection with nondispositive motions, a more rigorous "compelling reasons" standard applies to a sealing request related to dispositive motions. As stated by the Ninth Circuit, to seal documents or other materials related to a dispositive motion, the party seeking a sealing order "must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that 'compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.'" Id.; citation omitted.

The parties' Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, in and of itself, creates no entitlement to file under seal information, documents, and things designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" by the parties. Accordingly, reference to the parties' Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order or to the parties' designation of information, documents, or things as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" is wholly insufficient to warrant filing under seal. Good cause, if not compelling reasons, must be shown to support a request for filing under seal, and the parties' mere designation of information, documents, or things as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" does not -- without the submission of evidence establishing the confidential nature of the information, documents, or things sought to be filed under seal --establish good cause, let alone compelling reasons, for filing under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20081230

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.