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.

Integral Development Corp v. Viral Tolat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California San Francisco Division


April 22, 2013

INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIRAL TOLAT, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO COURT COURT 13 FILE PORTIONS OF DOCUMENTS C C ISTRICT ISTRICT D D 16 _____________________________________/ [Re: ECF No. 59, 60, 62] UNDER SEAL AND DENYING AS 14 MOOT DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 15 FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL TATES

TATES 17 On April 11, 2013, the parties filed redacted versions of two joint discovery letters briefs 18 describing two discovery disputes. Joint Discovery Letter Brief No. 1, ECF No. 55; Joint Discovery 19 Letter Brief No. 2, ECF No. 56. Plaintiff also filed redacted versions of two declarations in support

20 of its positions in these two joint discovery letter briefs. Sandhu Declaration, ECF No. 57; Berryhill 21 Declaration, ECF No. 58. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two administrative motions requesting 22 permission to file portions of the two joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill 23 Declarations under seal. First Administrative Motion, ECF No. 59; Second Administrative Motion, 24 ECF No. 60. On April 15, 2013, the undersigned's chambers received unredacted copies of the two 25 joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill Declarations. These unredacted copies, 26 however, did not highlight the portions of the letters and declarations that Plaintiff seeks to file 27 under seal. Upon being ordered to do so, Plaintiff thereafter submitted new, unredacted versions of 28 the two joint discovery letter briefs and the Sandhu and Berryhill Declarations with the portions that 1 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal highlighted in yellow. Then, on April 16, 2013, Defendant filed his 2 own administrative motion requesting that several of the same documents be filed under seal. 3 Defendant's Administrative Motion, ECF No. 62. 4 Good cause shown, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's administrative motions. Plaintiff's proposed 5 orders, however, included only the portions of the documents it designated as confidential and did 6 not, for some reason, include the portions of the documents Defendant designated as confidential. 7 Accordingly, the court specifies that the following shall be filed under seal: 8 1. The highlighted portions of the Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, filed 9 April 11, 2013, on pages 1, 2, 4, 5; 10 2. Paragraphs 2-5 and 8 to the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu, filed April 11, 2013; 11 3. Paragraphs 4-5 to the Declaration of Jon Berryhill, filed April 11, 2013; 12 4. The highlighted portions of Exhibit 1 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery

For the Northern District of California

14 429:17-435:13; 15 5. Exhibit 3 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of D 16 Deposition Transcript of Arthur Patterson, March 15, 2013;

COURT 13 Disputes, which are excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Viral Tolat, March 7, 2012, pages C TATES 17 6. The highlighted portions of Exhibit 5 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery S 18 Disputes, which is a March 11, 2012 Proposed Letter To Judge Beeler, on page 2; 19 7. The highlighted portions of Exhibit 6 Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes,

20 which is a Draft of the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu on pages 2-4; 21 8. Exhibit 7 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of 22 Integral Production Documents that are marked "confidential"; 23 9. Exhibit 8 to Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are portions of a 24 March 20, 2013 Letter from Mr. Russo to Mr. Eckhaus; 25 10. Portions of Exhibit 4 to the Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is 26 a March 20, 2013 Letter from Mr. Russo to Mr. Eckhaus; 27 11. Exhibit 5 to Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes which are excerpts of the 28 Deposition Transcript of Arthur Patterson, March 15, 2013;

1 12. Portions of Exhibit 6 Joint Letter Brief No. 1 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which is a Draft 2 of the Declaration of Harpal Sandhu, on pages 2-4; and 3 13. Exhibit 7 to Joint Letter Brief No. 2 Regarding Discovery Disputes, which are excerpts of 4 Integral Production Documents that are marked "confidential." 5 In light of the court granting Plaintiff's administrative motions, Defendant's administrative 6 motion, which asks the undersigned to allow a subset of the above-listed documents to be filed under 7 seal, is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

20130422

© 1992-2013 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.