Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 1162, 1165, 1168, 1183, 1192, 1195, 1196, 1217, 1221, 1225, 1238, 1255, 1258, 1261 and 1279) Docket Nos. 525, 526, 532, 536, 537, 545, 553, 556, 559 and 568) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple parties. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 1162, 1165, 1168, 1183, 1192, 1195, 1196, 1217, 1221, 1225, 1238, 1255, 1258, 1261 and 1279) Docket Nos. 525, 526, 532, 536, 537, 545, 553, 556, 559 and 568) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple parties. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a t..
More
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 1162, 1165, 1168, 1183, 1192, 1195, 1196, 1217, 1221, 1225, 1238, 1255, 1258, 1261 and 1279)
Docket Nos. 525, 526, 532, 536, 537, 545, 553, 556, 559 and 568)
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple parties.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable material. Id. The request must be supported by the designating party's declaration establishing that the information is sealable. Id. subsection (d).
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In considering a sealing request, the Court begins with "a strong presumption of access [as] the starting point." Id.
A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Id. at 1178-79. This is because dispositive motions represent "the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Id. at 1179.
The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive motions, which may be only "tangentially related" to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179-80. A party seeking to seal materials related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause by making a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" should the information be disclosed. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm" will not suffice. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003). These different standards are applied as relevant to the documents addressed below.
The Court provides the following rulings on the parties' motions to seal, as articulated in the table below. Case No. 10-3724
Docket No. Ruling
1162 Intervenor Atheros seeks permission to file under
seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of John W.
McCauley, IV in support of Intervenors' and
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Plaintiff's Dispositive Motions.
These documents contain references to and excerpts
from Atheros product specifications including source
code.
If Atheros seeks permission to seal these documents
in their entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure
to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which
requires that requests to seal be narrowly tailored.
However, if Atheros intended to file these documents
with only confidential information redacted (as
suggested by its statement that "[t]he exhibits
contain information that has been marked as
[confidential]"), Atheros fails to file redacted
versions of these documents as required by Civil
Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 1162).
Atheros may resubmit a modified and narrowly
tailored version of this sealing request no later
than seven days from the date of this order. If it
does not do so, the documents must be filed in the
public record.
1165 Defendant Hewlett Packard (HP) moves to file under
seal all or parts of the following two documents:
Exhibit 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Cameron A.
Zinsli (Zinsli Declaration). HP has not provided
any justification for why these documents should be
sealed. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket
No. 1165). Within seven days of the date of this
order, HP shall file a declaration justifying its
request, or, in the alternative, file unredacted
versions of these documents in the public record.
1168 Intervenor Marvell Semiconductor (MSI) moves to file
under seal all or part of the following documents
filed in support of Intervenors' and Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to
Plaintiff's Dispositive Motions:
1. Intervenors' and Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's
Dispositive Motion. The motion is GRANTED
because MSI has limited its request to
confidential information.
2. Exhibits 1-5 to the Declaration of Michael
Flynn-O'Brien in Support of Intervenors' and
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion
(Flynn Declaration). These exhibits contain
detailed MSI sales and financial information.
The motion is GRANTED because MSI has limited
its request to confidential information.
3. Exhibits 6-8 to the Flynn Declaration. These
documents comprise excerpts from the expert
report and deposition of Dr. Mitzenmacher, and
quote MSI's highly confidential technical
documentation. The motion is GRANTED because
MSI has limited its request to confidential
information.
4. Exhibit 9 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit 9
comprises excerpts from the deposition
transcript of MSI's Rule 30(b)(6) technical
witness, Manfred Kunz. The motion is GRANTED
because MSI has limited its request to
confidential information.
5. Exhibit 10 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
10 comprises excerpts from the deposition
transcript of Dr. Thomas M. Conte, USEI's
expert regarding validity. The motion is
GRANTED because MSI has limited its request to
confidential information.
6. The Declaration of Manfred Kunz (Kunz
Declaration), in its entirety. Portions of the
Kunz Declaration contain MSI's confidential
technical documentation and source code for the
accused products. The motion is GRANTED
because MSI has limited its request to
confidential information.
7. Exhibit 1 to the Kunz Declaration. Exhibit 1
is an excerpt from MSI's internal and
confidential correspondence regarding analysis
of certain MSI and third party products. The
motion is GRANTED because MSI has limited its
request to confidential information.
Accordingly, MSI's motion to seal is GRANTED (Docket
No. 1168).
1183 Defendant Apple moves to file under seal all or part
the following documents in Support of its Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the
094 Patent:
1. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Chris Cravey
(Cravey Declaration). The document contains
technical material from Sun Microsystem's (now
Oracle America, Inc.) proprietary literature
describing the structure, configuration, and
operation of the Sun Ethernet technology. The
motion is GRANTED because Apple has limited its
request to confidential information.
2. Exhibit 2 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 2
is a detailed summary of Apple's Ethernet
components and software. The motion is GRANTED
because Apple has limited its request to
confidential information.
3. Exhibit 3 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 3
contains highly sensitive information regarding
how certain aspects of the Sun Ethernet
technology was utilized and implemented in
certain Apple products. The motion is GRANTED
because Apple has limited its request to
confidential information.
4. Exhibit 4 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 4
comprises excerpts from the Sun GEM Gigabit
Ethernet ASIC Specification. The motion is
GRANTED because Apple has limited its request
to confidential information.
5. Exhibit 5 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 5
comprises portions of Apple's Ethernet driver
source code for the accused Sun Ethernet
technology utilized in certain Apple products.
The motion is GRANTED because Apple has limited
its request to confidential information.
6. Exhibit 6 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 6
comprises certain excerpts from the May 31,
2014 deposition of USEI technical expert
Michael Mitzenmacher. The motion is GRANTED
because Apple has limited its request to
confidential information.
7. Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as
found in Docket No. 1167-2 (redacted) and 1167-3
(unredacted). The motion is GRANTED because
Apple has limited its request to confidential
information.
Accordingly, Apple's motion to seal is GRANTED
(Docket No. 1183).
1192 Defendant Intel seeks permission to file Exhibit 1
to the Declaration of Melissa Hotze (Hotze
Declaration) in Support of its Motion for Relief
from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate
Judge. Exhibit 1 contains excerpts from the
videotaped disposition of Laurence Rosenberg. Intel
has not provided any reason why this document should
be filed under seal, and there does not appear to be
any sealable material in the document. Accordingly,
Intel's motion to seal is DENIED (Docket No. 1192).
Within seven days of the date of this order, Intel
may file a declaration justifying its request, or,
in the alternative, file an unredacted version of
this document in the public record.
1195 USEI seeks permission to file under seal, in its
entirety, its Reply in Support of its Motions for
(536 in Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to
10-5254) Intervenors' and Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment. USEI does not limit its request to only
confidential material, and the document contains
unsealable information. Accordingly, the motion is
DENIED (Docket No. 1195) for failure to comply with
Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that
requests to seal be narrowly tailored. USEI may
resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version of
this sealing request no later than seven days from
the date of this order. Because this document has
been designated confidential both by USEI and
Defendants, USEI must also provide proof of service
to Defendants. Within four days of being served,
Defendants must file a declaration establishing that
the document is sealable. If the parties fail to do
so, the document must be filed in the public record.
1196 USEI seeks permission to file under seal all or part
of numerous documents in support of its Motions for
(537 in Summary Judgment:
10-5254) 1. Exhibits 2, 9, 13-16, 22-25, 27, 29, 31, 32,
35-37, 39-47, 50-52, 54, 55, 58, 61-65, 67, 69
and 70 to the Declaration of D. Sean Nation
(Nation Declaration). These documents comprise
excerpts of confidential technical information,
including, in some cases, source code. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to these
documents because USEI has limited its request
to confidential technical information.
2. Exhibits 4, 27, 34, 48, 53, 57, 66 and 68 to
the Nation Declaration. The motion is DENIED
with regard to these documents for failure to
comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which
requires that requests to seal be narrowly
tailored. USEI may resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing
request no later than seven days from the date
of this order. If it does not do so, these
documents must be filed in the public record.
3. Exhibits 3, 11, 38 and 56 to the Nation
Declaration. These documents contain
confidential design and technical information
about Intel's products. As the designating
party, Intel has provided redacted and
unredacted versions of these documents in
Docket No. 1207. The motion is GRANTED with
regard to these documents because Intel limits
the redacted material to confidential technical
information. The redacted versions of these
documents can be filed under seal.
4. Exhibit 59 to the Nation Declaration. The
motion is DENIED with regard to this document
because the document discusses issues that are
in the public record. USEI may file a
declaration justifying its sealing request no
later than seven days from the date of this
order. If it does not do so, these documents
must be filed in the public record.
Accordingly, USEI's motion to seal is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket
No. 1196).
1217 Defendant Apple seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents in Support of
the Reply in Support of Intervenors' and Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to
Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion:
1. Exhibit 7 to the Cravey Declaration. Exhibit 7
contains excerpts from the May 31, 2014
deposition of USEI's technical expert Michael
Mitzenmacher. The motion is GRANTED because
Apple has limited its request to confidential
information.
2. Portions of Apple's Reply in Support of its
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
of the `094 Patent. The document
contains information about Apple's acquisition
of the Sun Ethernet technology and the
technical configuration and settings of the Sun
Ethernet technology. The motion is GRANTED
because Apple has limited its request to
confidential information.
Accordingly, Apple's motion to seal is GRANTED
(Docket No. 1217).
1221 Defendant Intel seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents in support of
(545 in Intervenors' and Defendants' Reply In Support of
10-5254) Motions for Summary Judgment:
1. The Reply itself. Portions of the document
contain confidential Intel financial
information and sales information pertaining to
the sales of PHY chips and ICH2 products. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to this document
because Intel has limited its request to
confidential information.
2. Exhibit 67 to the Constant Reply Declaration.
Exhibit 67 contains discussion of a settlement
agreement. Intel does not, however, provide
the name of the party who designated the
document confidential, nor has it articulated a
compelling reason why it should be sealed.
Accordingly, with regard to Exhibit 67, this
motion is DENIED. With seven days, Intel must
file a declaration justifying its request and
identifying the party that designated the
document confidential, along with proof of
service on that party. If Intel fails to do
so, the document must be withdrawn. The
designating party must file, within four days
of being served, a declaration justifying why
the document is sealable. If it does not do
so, the document must be filed in the public
record.
3. Exhibit 68 to the Constant Reply Declaration.
Exhibit 68 is the supplemental expert report of
Walter Bratic. This document refers to a
confidential agreement between Intel, Xircom
and 3Com. The motion is GRANTED with regard to
this document because Intel has limited its
redactions to only confidential information.
4. Exhibits 69 and 70 to the Constant Reply
Declaration. These are exhibits to USEI's
Damages Expert's First and Supplemental Report
regarding Intel. Intel seeks to seal these
documents in their entirety due to the
confidential financial information contained
therein. The motion is GRANTED with regard to
this document because Intel has limited its
request to confidential information.
Accordingly, Intel's motion to seal is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket
No. 1221).
connection with the Reply in Support of Intervenors'
and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Plaintiff's Dispositive Motions:
1. The Reply itself. MSI represents that the
document discusses detailed financial and
technical information about MSI. However, MSI
has failed to file both the redacted and
unredacted versions of the document as required
by Local Civil Rule 79-5(d)(1). Accordingly,
with regard to this document, the motion is
DENIED. Within seven days, MSI must file a
declaration accompanied by the unredacted and
redacted versions of this document, or, in the
alternative, file an unredacted version of this
document in the public record.
2. Exhibits 11-12 to the Flynn Declaration. These
documents contain excerpts from the Rebuttal
Expert Report of Dr. Leonard J. Forys Re: Non-Infringement.
The motion is GRANTED with
regard to these documents because MSI has
limited its request to confidential
information.
3. Exhibit 13 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
13 is a sealed "Order on Marvell's Motion for
Summary Judgment" from France Telecom S.A. v.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.,
confidential business contacts, locations, and
financial information, and was sealed in that
case. The motion is GRANTED with regard to
this document because MSI limits its request to
only confidential information and the
information was previously sealed.
4. Exhibit 14 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
14 is the sealed "Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" filed
in France Telecom S.A. Exhibit 14 contains
confidential sales, business, and financial
information. The motion is GRANTED with regard
to this document because MSI limits its request
to only confidential information and the
information was previously sealed.
5. Exhibit 16 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
16 is Exhibit 2 of Deposition of Kenny Tam,
which contains two copies of a license
agreement between MSI, MAPL, and 3Com. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to this document
because MSI has limited its request to
confidential information.
6. Exhibit 17 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
17 contains excerpts from the Rebuttal Expert
Witness Report and Disclosure of Julie L.
Davis. The motion is GRANTED with regard to
this document because MSI has limited its
request to confidential information.
7. Exhibit 19 to the Flynn Declaration. Exhibit
19 is the deposition transcript of MSI's Rule
30(b)(6) technical witness, Manfred Kunz. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to this document
because MSI limits its request to only
confidential information.
Accordingly, MSI's motion to seal is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No.
1225).
1238 USEI seeks permission to file under seal all or part
of the following documents:
(553 in 1. Exhibits 1-6 and 11-14 contain the reports of
10-5254) USEI's primary infringement expert, Dr.
Mitzenmacher, which USEI seeks to file under
seal in their entirety. These exhibits are the
base and supplemental infringement reports
prepared by Dr. Mitzenmacher for Defendants and
Intervenors. The motion with regard to these
documents is DENIED for failure to comply with
Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that
requests to seal be narrowly tailored. USEI
may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request no later than
seven days from the date of this order. If it
does not do so, the documents must be filed in
the public record.
2. Exhibit 9 is pages 49-52 of the report of
USEI's expert Dr. Thomas Conte. USEI
represents that Exhibit 9 has been designated
by Defendants as highly confidential.
Defendants have not filed declarations in
support of USEI's motion to seal as required by
Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Accordingly, with
regards to Exhibit 9, the motion is DENIED.
Defendants must file, within four days of the
date of this order, a declaration justifying
why this document is sealable. If Defendants
fail to do so, USEI must file this document in
the public record.
3. Exhibit 15 is a report of Dr. Walter Bratic,
USEI's damages expert. The motion is DENIED
with regard to this document for failure to
comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which
requires that requests to seal be narrowly
tailored. USEI may resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing
request no later than seven days from the date
of this order. If it does not do so, the
document must be filed in the public record.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket 1238).
1255 Intervenor Atheros moves to seal, in their entirety,
Exhibits 1 and 5 to the Declaration of John W.
McCauley (McCauley Declaration) in support of its
opposition to USEI's motion to supplement the record
and for leave to serve supplemental reports. The
documents contain references to and excerpts from
Atheros product specifications, which include source
code. The motion (Docket No. 1255) is DENIED for
failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b),
which requires that requests to seal be narrowly
tailored. Atheros may resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing request no
later than seven days from the date of this order.
If it does not do so, the documents must be filed in
the public record.
1258 Intervenor Intel seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents in connection
(556 in with Intervenors' and Defendants' Opposition to
10-5254) USEI's Motion to Supplement the Record and for Leave
to Serve Supplemental Reports:
1. The Opposition itself. The motion is GRANTED
with regard to this document because the
materials are related to a non-dispositive
motion and because Intel limits the redacted
material to only confidential information.
2. Exhibits 2, 4, 9, 11, 19 and 20 to the
Declaration of Justin L. Constant (Constant
Declaration). Intel does not provide any
justification for why these documents should be
sealed. Accordingly, with regard to these
documents, the motion is DENIED. Within seven
days of the date of this order, Intel may file
a declaration justifying its request, or, in
the alternative, file unredacted versions of
these documents in the public record. Because
these documents have been designated
confidential by USEI, Intel must also provide
proof of service to USEI. Within four days of
receiving notice, USEI must file a declaration
establishing that these documents are sealable.
If the parties fail to do so, these documents
must be filed in the public record.
3. Exhibits 3, 5, 13, 16, 17 to the Constant
Declaration. These are varying versions of Mr.
Bratic's Expert Report exhibits J2 and J5. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to these
materials because the materials are related to
a non-dispositive motion and because Intel
limits its request to only confidential
information.
4. Exhibit 6 to the Constant Declaration. This is
a chart showing calculations based on unit
sales in Mr. Bratic's Expert Report. The
motion is GRANTED with regard to this document
because the materials are related to a non-dispositive
motion and because Intel limits its
request to only confidential information.
5. Exhibit 8 to the Constant Declaration. Exhibit
8 comprises a portion of the Base Expert
Witness Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
(Mitzenmacher Report). The motion is GRANTED
because the materials are related to a non-dispositive
motion and because Intel limits its
request to only confidential information.
6. Exhibits 14 and 15 to the Constant Declaration,
which Intel seeks to file under seal in their
entirety. These are Mr. Bratic's First and
Second Supplemental Base Reports. The motion
is DENIED with regard to these documents for
failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b),
which requires that requests to seal be
narrowly tailored. Intel may resubmit a
modified and narrowly tailored version of this
sealing request no later than seven days from
the date of this order. If it does not do so,
and USEI does not either, these documents must
be filed in the public record.
The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as
set forth above (Docket No. 1258).
1261 Intervenor Marvell (MSI) seeks permission to file
under seal all or part of the following documents in
connection with Intervenors' And Defendants'
Opposition To USEI's Motion To Supplement The Record
And For Leave To Serve Supplemental Reports:
1. The Opposition itself. MSI represents that the
document discusses detailed financial and
technical information about itself. However,
MSI has failed to file both the redacted and
unredacted versions of the document in
connection with this motion as required by
Local Civil Rule 79-5(d)(1). Accordingly, with
regard to this document, the motion is DENIED.
Within seven days, MSI must file a declaration
accompanied by the unredacted and redacted
versions of this document, or, in the
alternative, file an unredacted version of this
document in the public record.
2. Exhibits 2-8 to the Declaration of Michael
Flynn-O'Brien (Flynn Declaration). These
exhibits comprise highly confidential
technical, financial, and business information.
The motion is GRANTED with regard to these
materials because they are related to a non-dispositive
motion and because MSI limits its
request to only confidential information.
MSI's motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 1261).
1279 USEI moves to seal the entire Supplemental Report of
Walter Bratic and its Exhibits. Mr. Bratic's report
(568 in and exhibits include information on the number of
10-5254) accused products sold during the damages period and
a chart, for each product, stating which patent each
product is accused of infringing. Most of this
document is sealable. Accordingly, USEI's motion to
seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 1279).
Case No. 10-5254
525 Intervenor Sigma Designs, Inc. (Sigma) seeks
permission to file under seal all or part of the
following documents in support of Intervenors' and
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and
Opposition to Plaintiff's Dispositive Motions:
1. Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Lin.
2. Amended Expert Witness Report of Dr. Michael
Mitzenmacher Regarding Infringement of U.S.
Patent No. 5,299,313 by Intervenor Sigma
Designs, Inc. and Defendant AT&T Services.
The motion (Docket No. 525) is DENIED for failure to
comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires
that requests to seal be narrowly tailored. Sigma
may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request no later than seven
days from the date of this order. If it does not do
so, the documents must be filed in the public
record.
526 Defendant AT&T Services (ATTS) seeks permission to
file under seal all or part of the following
documents in support of Intervenors' and Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to
Plaintiff's Dispositive Motions:
1. Excerpt from the April 28, 2014 Amended Expert
Witness Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
5,299,313 by Intervenor Sigma Designs, Inc. and
Defendant ATTS. The motion is GRANTED with
regard to this document because ATTS limits its
request to only confidential information.
2. Excerpt from Appendix M of the April 25, 2014
Expert Report of Walter Bratic. The excerpt
contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive
financial information of ATTS. The motion is
GRANTED with regard to this document because
ATTS limits its request to only confidential
information.
3. Excerpt from Appendix I of the April 25, 2014
Expert Report of Walter Bratic. The excerpt
contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive
financial information of Sigma. The motion is
GRANTED with regard to this document because
ATTS limits its request to only confidential
information.
4. Excerpt from the transcript of Walter Bratic's
June 10-11, 2014 Deposition. The excerpt
contains confidential, nonpublic, and sensitive
information of USEI, Sigma and/or ATTS. It
also contains considerable non-sealable
information. The motion is DENIED with regard
to this document for failure to comply with
Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that
requests to seal be narrowly tailored. ATTS
may resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request no later than
seven days from the date of this order.
Because this document has been designated
confidential by USEI, Sigma and ATTS, Sigma
must also provide proof of service to USEI and
ATTS. Within four days of being served, USEI
and ATTS must file a declaration establishing
that the document is sealable. If the parties
fail to do so, the document must be filed in
the public record.
5. Excerpt from the transcript of Michael
Mitzenmacher's May 31, 2014 Deposition. The
excerpt contains confidential, nonpublic, and
sensitive information of USEI, Sigma and ATTS.
The motion is GRANTED with regard to this
excerpt because ATTS limits its request to only
confidential information.
ATTS's motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 526).
532 Intel seeks permission to file under seal all or
part of the following documents in connection with
Intervenors' and Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Dispositive
Motions:
1. The Motion and Opposition itself. The motion
is GRANTED with regard to this document because
Intel limits the redacted material to only
confidential information.
2. Exhibits 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 34-40 and
63-65 to the Constant Declaration. Intel
represents that USEI has designated these
documents as confidential, but there appears to
be no declaration from USEI as to why these
documents should be filed under seal.
Accordingly, with regard to these documents,
the motion is DENIED. Within seven days, Intel
must file a declaration justifying its request,
and USEI must file a declaration justifying why
these documents are sealable. If the parties
fail to do so, unredacted versions of these
documents must be filed in the public record.
3. Exhibits 1-7, 9, 12-14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29-32,
53 and 55-58 to the Constant Declaration.
These documents comprise excerpts of other
documents and contain confidential technical,
financial and/or business information. With
regard to these documents, the motion is
GRANTED because Intel limits its request to
only confidential information.
4. Exhibit 29 of the Constant Declaration. With
respect to this exhibit, the motion is DENIED
because the document does not appear to contain
any confidential information. Within seven
days, Intel may file a declaration justifying
why this document is sealable, or, in the
alternative, it must file an unredacted version
of this document in the public record.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 532).
559 Intervenor Sigma seeks permission to file under seal
all or part of the following documents relating to
Intervenors' and Defendants' Opposition To USEI's
Motion to Supplement the Record and for Leave to
Serve Supplemental Reports:
1. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the Declaration of
Keren Hu (Hu Declaration). These exhibits
contain references to and excerpts from Sigma
product specifications, which include source
code. The motion is GRANTED with regard to
these documents because the materials are
related to a non-dispositive motion and because
Sigma limits its request to only confidential
information.
2. Exhibit 3 to the Hu Declaration. The motion is
DENIED with regard to this document because it
does not appear to contain any confidential
information. Within seven days, Sigma may file
a declaration justifying why this document is
sealable, or, in the alternative, it must file
an unredacted version of this document in the
public record.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No. 559).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Atheros' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1162) is DENIED; HP's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1165) is DENIED; MSI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1168) is GRANTED; Apple's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1183) is DENIED; Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1192) is DENIED; USEI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1195; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 536) is DENIED; USEI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1196) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; Apple's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1217) is GRANTED; Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1221; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 545) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; MSI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1225) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; USEI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1238; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 553) is DENIED; Atheros' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1255) is DENIED; Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1258) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; MSI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1261) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; USEI's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1279) is GRANTED; Sigma's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 525) is DENIED; ATTS' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 526) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 532) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; Sigma's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 559) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above.
With regard to those documents where the motion to file under seal was denied, the denials are without prejudice. The party requesting sealing must submit, within seven days, a revised declaration remedying the deficiencies noted above. If the document has been designated confidential by a party other than the party requesting sealing, the requesting party must also provide proof of service on the designating party. The designating party must file, within four days of receiving notice, a declaration justifying why the document is sealable. Any document for which these requirements are not met must be filed in the public record if the designating party has not justified sealing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
