Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., 14-cv-03657-SI. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190605d76 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 489, 498, 532. SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . This order addresses several pending administrative motions to file under seal. Dkt. No. 489: GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 and DENIED as to Exhibit 6. See Dkt. No. 509. MLC shall file a fully redacted version of Exhibit 6 in the public record. Dkt. No. 498: GRANTED as to the first highlighted portion of the motion. DENIED as to the second highlighted portion of the motion
More

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 489, 498, 532.

This order addresses several pending administrative motions to file under seal.

Dkt. No. 489: GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 and DENIED as to Exhibit 6. See Dkt. No. 509. MLC shall file a fully redacted version of Exhibit 6 in the public record.

Dkt. No. 498: GRANTED as to the first highlighted portion of the motion. DENIED as to the second highlighted portion of the motion which addresses MLC's damages case. There is nothing confidential about that section. MLC shall refile the opposition with the second highlighted portion in the public record.

Dkt. No. 532: DENIED. Micron states that material at issue is not confidential. Dkt. No. 552. MLC shall file a fully unredacted version of Exhibit 141 in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Exhibit 14 is an exhibit to Mr. Marino's declaration filed in support of MLC's reply to "MLC's Damages-Related Motions in Limine Re Liesgang and Meyer." Exhibit 14 appears to be the only exhibit filed in connection with MLC's reply brief. Mr. Marino also filed a declaration in connection with MLC's Damages-Related Motions in Limine Re Liesgang and Meyer (Dkt. Nos. 453-454). That declaration contained Exhibits 1-14, and Exhibit 14 in support of the motion is different than the Reply Exhibit 14. It is unclear to the Court whether the Reply Exhibit is mis-numbered and should be Exhibit 15, or whether the Reply Exhibit 14 replaces the original Exhibit 14.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer