Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-PAL
04-04-2013
ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RIMINI STREET, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On March 29, 2013, the court entered a Sealed Order (Dkt. #466) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (#302, 307). The motion was filed under seal because two versions of each of the moving and responsive papers were filed. One version was filed under seal to protect information counsel for one or both parties had designated as confidential, or highly confidential attorney's eyes only. A second version redacted of the confidential information was filed on the court's public docket. The moving and responsive papers and attached voluminous exhibits and declarations consisted of literally thousands of pages. The court's order attempted to avoid mention of information designated as confidential or highly confidential. However, the court lacks the time or the resources to systematically review thousands of pages of documents to compare it with the court's order to determine if any portion of the order referred to confidential or highly confidential information.
There is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records. To preserve that presumption, and promote transparency about the judicial process, and the decisions made in this case, the court will direct that the clerk of the court file the order deciding this motion on the public record unless, for good cause shown, counsel for the parties establish that certain portions of the order should be redacted. The court will give counsel fourteen days from entry of this order in which to review the sealed order and submit any request for proposed redactions, with a memorandum justifying why the redaction should be made. Failure to file a request for redaction will be construed as a consent that the sealed order (Dkt # 466) shall be unsealed and available on the court's public docket.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The parties shall have until April 18, 2013, in which to file any request to redact portions of the court's Sealed Order (Dkt. #466). The request shall be supported with a memorandum of points and authorities establishing good cause applying the Ninth Circuit's standards in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Failure to file a request for redaction on or before April 18, 2013, shall be construed as a consent to file the order, unsealed, on the docket.
2. The clerk of the court is directed to file the Order (unsealed) on April 19, 2013, on the court's docket if no request for redaction of the order is filed by April 18, 2013.
______________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge