Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BUNSOW DE MORY LLP, Case No. 20-cv-04997-JSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S v. REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

AND SEALING MOTION

NORTH FORTY CONSULTING LLC,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 58

Defendant.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from this Court’s order regarding Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as its request to seal an excerpt from its motion. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 58.) After carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and determines that— as discussed at oral argument held on January 14, 2021—Defendant is granted leave to amend its answer and counterclaim with respect to the second claim for declaratory relief but not the first.

Regarding Defendant’s administrative motion to seal, Defendant seeks to seal one phrase in its motion. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 57-4 at 4, 58 at 4.) Defendant’s sealing request is narrowly tailored, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), and consistent with this Court’s prior sealing orders and the governing legal authority. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 26, 29.) See also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., Case No. 17-cv- 04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

CONCLUSION

Defendant shall file its second amended answer and counterclaim within 14 days of this 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 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 6 United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18