SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC v. STEC, INC.

Full title: SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SEAGATE…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Feb 10, 2009

CASE NO. 5:08-CV-01950 JW (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:08-CV-01950 JW (HRL).

February 10, 2009

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180), Nathan L. Walker (SBN 206128), Palo Alto, California.

James M. Dowd (admitted pro hac vice), Caroline Kane (admitted pro hac vice), Los Angeles, California.

Kevin C. Heffel (admitted pro hac vice), Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff STEC, Inc.

COVINGTON BURLING LLP, Elizabeth S. Pehrson, Redwood Shores, CA, Attorney for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology International; Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd.; and Maxtor Corporation.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING STIPULATION REQUESTING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER TO REMOVE FROM THE ECF SYSTEM INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENTS

HOWARD LLOYD, Magistrate JudgePage 1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the parties to this action — Defendant STEC, Inc. ("STEC") and Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology International, Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd., and Maxtor Corporation (collectively, "Seagate") — respectfully request that the Court issue an order permanently removing from the ECF system the documents linked to Docket Nos. 96, 97, and 98 in the above-referenced action. Good cause exists for this request, as set forth below:

On February 2, 2009, STEC e-filed, using the ECF system, the documents at the following three docket entries: (a) Docket No. 96 (STEC, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (dated February 2, 2009)); (b) Docket No. 97 (Declaration of Nathan L. Walker In Support of STEC, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Discovery, and accompanying exhibits); and (c) Docket No. 98 (Proposed Order Granting STEC, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery).

The documents at Docket Nos. 96 and 97 contain information and/or constitute material that Seagate previously designated in this action as "confidential" and thus, pursuant to an agreement between the parties and the terms of the Protective Order, should not have been filed in the publicly available ECF system.

To correct this filing error, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order permanently removing from the ECF system the documents linked to Docket Nos. 96 and 97, as well as the associated proposed order linked to Docket No. 98.

STEC represents that it today lodged with the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), STEC's Motion to Compel and the associated declaration and proposed order (documents previously at Docket Nos. 96, 97, and 98).

The request is GRANTED as to Docket Nos. 96 and 97. The request is DENIED as to Docket No. 98 which does not contain or reveal any confidential information.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

SO ORDERED.

ECF ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have on file documentation showing that Elizabeth S. Pehrson — whose conformed signature is set forth above — concurs in the filing of this document.