Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 SPLUNK INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-07611 WHA
12 v.
13 CRIBL, INC. and CLINT SHARP, ORDER RE LATEST SEALING
MOTIONS AND CHAMBERS
14 Defendants.
COPIES
15 16 Shortly after 9:00 P.M. the night before the dispositive motion deadline set long ago, the 17 parties filed a stipulation and proposed order governing sealing procedures for summary 18 judgment and Daubert motions to be filed the following day (Dkt. No. 123; see Dkt. No. 47 19 at 4). 20 Specifically, the parties agreed that “[i]f a party files a document for which it, the other 21 party, or a third party intends to request sealing, the party may publicly file the document in 22 redacted or slip-sheet form and contemporaneously file an unredacted copy of the same 23 document provisionally under seal on the ECF docket attached to a one-page interim sealing 24 motion indicating that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus 25 sealing motion . . . not [to] exceed five pages” (Dkt. No. 123 at 3). …