1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BUNSOW DE MORY LLP, Case No. 20-cv-04997-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 9 v. REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND SEALING MOTION 10 NORTH FORTY CONSULTING LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 58 Defendant. 11

12

13 Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from this Court’s order 14 regarding Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as its request to seal an excerpt 15 from its motion. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 58.) After carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court 16 concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and determines that— 17 as discussed at oral argument held on January 14, 2021—Defendant is granted leave to amend its 18 answer and counterclaim with respect to the second claim for declaratory relief but not the first. 19 Regarding Defendant’s administrative motion to seal, Defendant seeks to seal one phrase 20 in its motion. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 57-4 at 4, 58 at 4.) Defendant’s sealing request is narrowly tailored, 21 see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), and consistent with this Court’s prior sealing orders and the 22 governing legal authority. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 26, 29.) See also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 23

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., Case No. 17-cv- 24 04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 25 CONCLUSION 26 Defendant shall file its second amended answer and counterclaim within 14 days of this 27 Order, and Defendant’s sealing motion is GRANTED. 1 This Order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 57, 58. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 3, 2021 4 ne 5 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28