TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Technologies Limited et al
Filing
410
ORDER granting TriQuint's First Motion to Seal (Doc. 381 ; 370 -Notice). FURTHER ORDERED granting Avago's First Motion to Seal (Doc. 380 ; 365 -Notice). FURTHER ORDERED granting TriQuint's Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging u nder Seal (Doc. 397 ). FURTHER ORDERED granting Avago's Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging Under Seal (Doc. 400 ). FURTHER ORDERED granting Avago's Second Motion to Seal (Doc. 388 ). FURTHER ORDERED granting TriQuint's Secon d Motion to Seal (Doc. 389 ). FURTHER ORDERED that TriQuint's Motion to Seal to Certain Items in its Notice of Errata (Doc. 405 ; Doc. 393 -Notice). FURTHER ORDERED that Avago shall file a Motion to Seal (Doc. 374 ) within five days of th e date of this Order. If Avago does not file a Motion to Seal Doc. 374 within five days of the date of this Order, the Notice of the Motion to Seal (Doc. 373 ) will be denied with prejudice. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 12/12/11. (MAP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., a Delaware)
corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )
)
)
vs.
)
)
Avago Technologies Limited, a Singapore)
corporation; Avago Technologies U.S.,)
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Avago)
Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) Pte.,)
)
Ltd., a Singapore corporation,
)
D e f e n d a n t s / C o u n t e r -)
)
Claimants.
)
No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT
ORDER
18
Pending before the Court are: (1) Avago’s Motion to Seal the Sealed Lodged
19
Proposed Version of its Response to TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and to Seal
20
Certain Items in TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
21
3801; Doc. 365-notice); (2) TriQuint’s Motion to Seal Certain Items in Parties’ Replies in
22
Support of their Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 381; Doc. 370-notice); (3) Avago’s
23
Supplemental Motion to Seal the Lodged Proposed Versions of its Motion for Summary
24
25
26
27
28
1
Although this Motion’s title indicates that it seeks to seal documents attached to
Avago’s Response to TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment and documents attached to
TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the substance of the
Motion indicates that Avago seeks to seal documents related to TriQuint’s Reply in Support
of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and documents related to Avago’s Reply in
Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
1
Judgment and Supporting Documents, the Lodged Proposed Versions of Its Opposition to
2
TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documents, Certain Items in
3
TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Certain Items in TriQuint’s Opposition to
4
Avago’s Motion for Judgment (Doc. 388); (4) TriQuint’s Supplemental Motion to Seal
5
Certain Items in Parties’ Motions for and Oppositions to Summary Judgment (Doc. 389); (5)
6
TriQuint’s Motion to Seal Certain Items in TriQuint’s Notice of Errata (Doc. 405; Doc. 393 -
7
notice); (6) TriQuint’s Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging Under Seal (Doc. 397); and (7)
8
Avago’s Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging Under Seal (Doc. 400).
9
I.
BACKGROUND
10
The Parties in this case have stipulated to a Protective Order (Doc. 90) with regard to
11
information, documents, and other things produced or served, or otherwise disclosed in this
12
action, which they allege involve trade secrets and other valuable research, development,
13
commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection
14
from public disclosure and from use for any other purpose other than prosecution of this
15
action is warranted. The Parties represented to the Court that they have met and conferred
16
and have no disagreements regarding the filing under seal of any documents designated for
17
protection under the Stipulated Protective Order. See Doc. 298.
18
The Court has ordered a protocol (Doc. 300) for the filing of dispositive motions that
19
the Parties wish to have filed under seal. Pursuant to the protocol, the Parties have filed
20
several motions to seal that are now pending before the Court. The Court now rules on those
21
motions.
22
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
23
Because there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents,
24
a party seeking to seal a judicial record “bears the burden of overcoming this strong
25
presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana v. City and County
26
of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). This means
27
“the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that
28
-2-
1
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at
2
1178-1179 (internal quotations omitted). These compelling reasons must be shown in order
3
to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion, even if the dispositive motion, or its
4
attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order. Id. at 1179.
5
After conscientiously balancing the competing interests of the public and the party
6
who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret, “if the court decides to seal certain judicial
7
records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for
8
its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
9
III.
10
ANALYSIS
11
A. TriQuint’s Motion to Seal Certain Items in Parties’ Replies in Support
of their Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 381; Doc. 370-notice)
(“TriQuint’s First Motion to Seal”)
12
In its First Motion to Seal, TriQuint seeks to seal Exhibits 375 and 379 attached to its
13
Sealed Lodged Proposed Declaration of Jonathan M. James in Support of TriQuint’s Reply
14
in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 371-1) (the “James Reply
15
Declaration”) and Exhibits 188B, 291, 295, 296, 301, 202, and 313 attached to Avago’s Rule
16
56.1 Controverting Statement of Facts to TriQuint’s Additional Statement of Facts and
17
Avago’s Reply Statement of Facts in Support of its Statement of Material Facts (Doc. 366)
18
(“Avago Reply SOF”). TriQuint has identified six categories of information that it seeks to
19
seal: (1) customer identities, (2) sales information, (3) market analysis, (4) corporate
20
acquisitions, (5) capital expenditures and development costs, and (6) manufacturing capacity.
21
In accordance with this Court’s prior Orders, TriQuint has diligently redacted each
22
of the exhibits it seeks to have sealed, limiting its redactions to only that information it
23
considers to be the most sensitive.
24
information it seeks to redact, has individually identified such information in each document,
25
and has provided the Court with full explanations as to why that information should be
26
sealed. The Court will briefly discuss each category of information that TriQuint seeks to
27
have sealed.
Further, TriQuint has specifically identified the
28
-3-
1
1.
Customer Identity Information
2
Where a party shows that its documents contain sources of business information that
3
might harm its competitive standing, the need for public access to the records is lessened.
4
See Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). TriQuint contends that the
5
identities of its customers are not generally known to the public and requests that its
6
customers’ names be redacted from Exhibit 375 to the James Reply Declaration and Exhibits
7
188B, 295, and 303 to the Avago Reply SOF. This Court has previously held that solely
8
redacting TriQuint’s customer names from the exhibits only withholds a comparatively small
9
amount of information from the public, protects TriQuint’s interest in its competitive
10
standing, and does not affect the public’s interest in keeping a watchful eye on the workings
11
of public agencies. Accordingly, TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to redact its
12
customer names and other identifying information from Exhibit 375 to the James Reply
13
Declaration and Exhibits 188B, 295, and 303 to the Avago Reply SOF.
14
2.
Volume of Sales Information
15
TriQuint seeks to redact information regarding the volume of its sales. TriQuint
16
acknowledges that its total revenue is public, but asserts that its competitive standing will be
17
seriously harmed if certain sales information is released to the public because it would
18
provide competitors with information regarding TriQuint’s capacity, business strategy related
19
to particular industries and markets, and the value of its business in certain products.
20
TriQuint has limited its redactions to certain numbers that would reveal this information to
21
competitors. Because TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the
22
public and only a limited amount of information will be kept from the public, the Court finds
23
that TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal volume of sales information in Exhibits
24
375 and 379 to the James Reply Declaration and Exhibits 295, 296, 301, and 303 to the
25
Avago Reply SOF.
26
27
3.
Market Analysis Information
TriQuint seeks to seal Exhibit 313 to the Avago Reply SOF. Exhibit 313 is a detailed
28
-4-
1
spreadsheet tracking information regarding potentially competitive products that TriQuint
2
asserts is integral to its market analysis. TriQuint asserts that this information constitutes a
3
trade secret because it contains significant proprietary information. TriQuint asserts that, if
4
this information is revealed to the public, it will suffer serious competitive harm. Because
5
TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the public and only a limited
6
amount of information will be kept from the public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown
7
compelling reasons to seal the market analysis information contained in Exhibit 313 to the
8
Avago Reply SOF.
9
4.
Corporate Acquisitions Information
10
TriQuint seeks to redact portions of Exhibit 188B to the Avago Reply SOF because
11
it contains TriQuint’s analysis of and business strategy related to acquisition and licensing
12
opportunities. TriQuint asserts that revealing its negotiation strategies, business priorities
13
and decision-making process, in the context of acquisition and licensing negotiations with
14
a third party, would significantly harm its competitive standing. Because TriQuint would be
15
harmed if this information were revealed to the public and this information is only
16
tangentially related to the Parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court finds that
17
TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal the corporate acquisitions information
18
contained in Exhibit 188B to the Avago Reply SOF.
19
5.
Capital Expenditures and Development Cost Information
20
TriQuint seeks to redact portions of Exhibit 291 to the Avago Reply SOF because it
21
contains information regarding BAW development spending, budgets, and development
22
processes. TriQuint asserts that revealing this information to the public would significantly
23
harm its competitive standing because it would allow competitors to tailor their own capital
24
expenditures, budgets, and business strategies to compete against TriQuint more effectively.
25
Because TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the public and this
26
information is only tangentially related to the Parties’ motions for summary judgment, the
27
Court finds that TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal the information contained
28
-5-
1
in Exhibit 291 to the Avago Reply SOF.
2
6.
Manufacturing Capacity Information
3
TriQuint seeks to redact portion of Exhibit 303 to the Avago Reply SOF because it
4
contains numbers stating TriQuint’s manufacturing capacity. TriQuint asserts that revealing
5
this information to the public would harm its competitive standing because it would allow
6
competitors to tailor their own production and sales strategies to compete with TriQuint more
7
effectively. Because TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the
8
public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal the information
9
in Exhibit 303 to the Avago Reply SOF.
10
Accordingly, TriQuint’s First Motion to Seal (Doc. 381) is granted.
11
B.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Avago’s Motion to Seal the Sealed Lodged Proposed Version of its
Response to TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and to Seal
Certain Items in TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 380; Doc. 365-Notice) (“Avago’s First Motion to Seal”)
In its First Motion to Seal, Avago seeks to seal portions of (1) Exhibits 193B, 288, and
294 to its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 366), (2) the
Declaration of Richard Ruby lodged in support of its Reply in Support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto, and (3) Exhibits 372, 374, 376, 377, 378,
and 381 to the James Reply Declaration.
Avago argues that these documents fall into four categories that require them to be
sealed: (1) acquisition of assets from Infineon AG; (2) sales volume and pricing; (3) sensitive
information about Avago’s products and processes that is not typically available to the
public, including processes for making BAW filters; and (4) business relations with
customers and potential customers, including Apple Inc. and Motorola, Inc.
In accordance with this Court’s prior Orders, Avago has diligently redacted each of
the exhibits it seeks to have sealed, limiting its redactions to only that information it
considers to be the most sensitive.
This Court has previously held that disclosing
confidential business dealings with third parties, certain customer and pricing information,
and trade secrets, such as the processes involved in production, could harm Avago’s
-6-
1
competitive standing. Since only a relatively small portion of information will be withheld
2
from the public and Avago could suffer harm from the disclosure of this information, the
3
Court finds that Avago has shown compelling reasons to seal this information. Accordingly,
4
Avago’s First Motion to Seal (Doc. 380) is granted.
5
C.
8
Avago’s Supplemental Motion to Seal the Lodged Proposed Versions of
its Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Documents, the Lodged
Proposed Versions of Its Opposition to TriQuint’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Supporting Documents, Certain Items in TriQuint’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, and Certain Items in TriQuint’s Opposition to
Avago’s Motion for Judgment (Doc. 388) (“Avago’s Second Motion to
Seal”)
9
In its Second Motion to Seal, Avago seeks to seal: (1) Exhibits 65, 214, and 66 to its
10
Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 312) (“Avago’s SOF”), (2) Exhibit
11
185A and portions of Exhibits 187A, 218, 222, 205A, and 239A to its Controverting
12
Statement of Facts and Additional Statement of Facts (Doc. 350) (“Avago’s Controverting
13
SOF”), (3) Exhibits 21, 23, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 44, 69, 70, 46, 9, 14, 15, 54, 72, 32,
14
39, 53, 55, 56, 58, 73, 63, 64 and portions of Exhibits 11, 13, 20, 22, 24, 29, 30, 36, 38, 42,
15
43, 57, 59, 60, 67, 12, 52, 61, 62, 76, 92, 93, 104, 117, 118, 127, 95 and 105 to the
16
Declaration of Jonathan M. James in Support of TriQuint’s Motion for Partial Summary
17
Judgment (Doc. 306) (“James Supporting Declaration”), (4) Exhibits 303, 314, 315, 352, and
18
portions of 311, 313, 294, and 323 to the Declaration of Jonathan M. James in Support of
19
TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 349) (“James
20
Opposition Declaration”), and (5) Exhibits 20, 33, 175, 198, 142, 149, 180, 189, 190, 192,
21
195, 200, 201, and 193 to Avago’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 312).
6
7
22
Avago has identified four categories of information that it seeks to seal: (1) business
23
decision-making information, including pricing information and customer names, (2)
24
acquisition of assets from Infineon, (3) trade secrets, including filter design layouts, GDS
25
layer information, wireframe GDS images, and manufacturing processes, and (4) licensing
26
agreements.
27
Avago has again diligently redacted it exhibits and only requests that the Court seal
28
-7-
1
the information it considers to be the most sensitive. This Court has previously held that
2
disclosing certain customer and pricing information, certain licensing information, and trade
3
secrets, such as the filter design layouts, GDS layer information, wireframe GDS images,
4
and manufacturing processes could harm Avago’s competitive standing. Because only a
5
relatively small portion of information will be withheld from the public and Avago could
6
suffer harm from the disclosure of this information, the Court finds that Avago has shown
7
compelling reasons to seal this information. Accordingly, Avago’s Second Motion to Seal
8
(Doc. 388) is granted.
9
D.
10
TriQuint’s Supplemental Motion to Seal Certain Items in Parties’
Motions for and Oppositions to Summary Judgment (Doc. 389)
(“TriQuint’s Second Motion to Seal”)
11
In its Second Motion to Seal, TriQuint has identified thirteen categories of
12
information that it seeks to seal: (1) customer information, (2) sales information, (3) pricing
13
information, (4) business strategies, (5) market analysis, (6) corporate acquisitions, (7) trade
14
secrets, including development of new products and technology, (8) capital expenditures and
15
development costs, (9) manufacturing capacity, inventory, and yields, (10) investment
16
information, (11) profit margins, (12) organizational charts, and (13) employee information.
17
TriQuint has again diligently redacted each of the exhibits it seeks to have sealed,
18
limiting its redactions to only that information it considers to be the most sensitive. Further,
19
TriQuint has specifically identified the information it seeks to redact, has individually
20
identified such information in each document, and has provided the Court with full
21
explanations as to why that information should be sealed. The Court will briefly discuss
22
each category of information that TriQuint seeks to have sealed.
23
In its Second Motion to Seal, TriQuint offers the same reasons to seal information
24
regarding sales, market analysis, corporate acquisitions, capital expenditures and
25
development costs, trade secrets, and manufacturing capacity that it offered in its First
26
Motion to Seal, discussed above. For the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that
27
TriQuint has limited its redactions to only that information that, if disclosed, could harm its
28
-8-
1
competitive standing. Further, for the reasons discussed in this Court’s Orders regarding
2
prior motions to seal, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal
3
certain confidential information regarding its employees. Additionally, TriQuint asserts that
4
one exhibit contains two lines of attorney-client privileged information. The Court agrees
5
that such information is properly redacted. Accordingly, the Court finds that TriQuint has
6
shown compelling reasons to seal information regarding volume of sales, market analysis,
7
corporate acquisitions, capital expenditures and development costs, trade secrets,
8
manufacturing capacity, confidential employee records, and information that is attorney-
9
client privileged.
10
1.
Customer Information
11
TriQuint further seeks to protect information regarding its customers from public
12
disclosure. This information includes internal strategy regarding how best to win sales at
13
specific customers, how to address customer concerns, which products individual customers
14
are interested in, identifying information about customers, negotiations with customers, and
15
how to manage specific customer relationships. TriQuint contends that, if this information
16
were disclosed to the public, it would offer competitors valuable insight into its customer
17
relationships and negotiations and would allow competitors to copy its successful strategies
18
or to capitalize on its weak areas in order to compete with it. Because TriQuint would be
19
harmed if this information were revealed to the public and only a limited amount of
20
information will be kept from the public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown
21
compelling reasons to seal certain information regarding its customers from disclosure.
22
2.
Pricing Information
23
TriQuint seeks redaction of information regarding its product-specific pricing, target
24
prices, price proposals, and price forecasts. TriQuint argues that disclosure of its pricing
25
information would harm its competitive standing because it negotiates product-specific
26
pricing directly with customers and disclosure of such information would harm TriQuint’s
27
bargaining position and would give competitors the ability to directly undercut TriQuint and
28
-9-
1
unfairly win additional business. Because TriQuint would be harmed if this information
2
were revealed to the public and only a limited amount of information will be kept from the
3
public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown compelling reasons to seal certain
4
information regarding its pricing from disclosure.
5
3.
Business Strategy Information
6
TriQuint seeks redaction of information regarding its business strategy with regard
7
to its corporate direction, the development of certain products, product sourcing, product
8
competitiveness, and market and technological opportunities and risks. TriQuint argues that
9
disclosure of this information could harm its competitive standing because competitors
10
could then use those strategies to target certain areas of TriQuint’s operations and, thus,
11
could compete against TriQuint more effectively and significantly harm TriQuint’s business.
12
Because TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the public and only
13
a limited amount of information will be kept from the public, the Court finds that TriQuint
14
has shown compelling reasons to seal certain information regarding its business strategy
15
from disclosure.
16
4.
Investment Information
17
TriQuint seeks redaction of data regarding the performance and terms of its specific
18
investments, including financial strategies and returns. TriQuint argues that disclosure of
19
this information could harm its competitive standing and is entirely unrelated to the
20
underlying case. Where information is entirely unrelated to the underlying cause of action,
21
the public need is lessened. Accordingly, because there is a risk of harm to TriQuint’s
22
competitive standing if its investment information is disclosed, the Court finds that TriQuint
23
has shown compelling reasons to seal this information.
24
5.
Profit Margin Information
25
TriQuint seeks redaction of confidential information regarding its profit margins for
26
specific products. TriQuint argues that, because disclosure of margin information provides
27
insight into manufacturing costs and is a key factor in determining pricing, its competitors
28
- 10 -
1
would be able to compete with it more effectively by undercutting TriQuint’s pricing and
2
compromising TriQuint’s ability to negotiate and maximize its revenues.
3
TriQuint would be harmed if this information were revealed to the public and only a limited
4
amount of information will be kept from the public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown
5
compelling reasons to seal certain information regarding its profit margins from disclosure.
6
6.
Because
Disclosure of Organizational Charts
7
Finally, TriQuint seeks redaction of certain organizational charts for various internal
8
management, sales, and engineering employees and groups within TriQuint. TriQuint
9
argues that allowing competitors to access information regarding its internal management
10
structure, human resource allocation, and human resource capacity would harm its business
11
relations by allowing competitors to estimate the resources TriQuint has committed to
12
particular projects and would disadvantage it in future negotiations. Because TriQuint
13
would be harmed if this information were revealed to the public and only a limited amount
14
of information will be kept from the public, the Court finds that TriQuint has shown
15
compelling reasons to seal certain information regarding its organizational charts from
16
disclosure.
17
7.
Motion to Seal Notice of Errata
18
Additionally, TriQuint has filed a Notice of Errata (Doc. 394), which adds pages to
19
exhibits attached to the James Opposition Declaration. TriQuint requests that the Court
20
allow redactions to the additional pages in Exhibits 137 and renews its original requests to
21
allow redactions to Exhibits 146 and 147. The exhibits contain redactions to the same
22
corporate acquisition and business strategy information discussed above. Accordingly, the
23
Court finds that TriQuint has show compelling reasons to seal the exhibits attached to its
24
Notice of Errata. Therefore, TriQuint’s Second Motion to Seal (Doc. 389) and TriQuint’s
25
Motion to Seal Certain Items in its Notice of Errata (Doc. 405; Doc. 393-Notice) are
26
granted.
27
Based on the foregoing,
28
- 11 -
1
2
3
4
IT IS ORDERED that TriQuint’s First Motion to Seal (Doc. 381; 370-Notice) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avago’s First Motion to Seal (Doc. 380; 365Notice) is granted.
5
The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal (1) the original unredacted versions of
6
TriQuint’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (currently lodged
7
at Doc. 371) and (2) Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their
8
Motion for Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 407).
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TriQuint’s Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging
under Seal (Doc. 397) is granted.
11
The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the original unredacted versions of
12
TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (currently lodged at
13
Doc. 398).
14
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avago’s Motion to Seal and Notice of Lodging
Under Seal (Doc. 400) is granted.
16
The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the original unredacted versions of
17
Proposed Exhibits A-M to the Declaration of Eric B. Evans (currently lodged at Doc. 401).
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avago’s Second Motion to Seal (Doc. 388) is
19
20
21
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TriQuint’s Second Motion to Seal (Doc. 389) is
granted.
22
The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the original unredacted versions of (1)
23
TriQuint’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 304), (2)
24
TriQuint’s Statement of Material Facts Relating to its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
25
(currently lodged at Doc. 305), (3) Proposed Declaration of Jonathan M. James in Support
26
of TriQuint’s Motions for Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 306); (4) Avago’s
27
Rule 56.1 Controverting Statement of Facts and Additional Statement of Facts in Support
28
- 12 -
1
of Response to TriQuint’s Statement of Material Facts (currently lodged at Doc. 350); (5)
2
Proposed Declaration of Jonathan M. James in Support of TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s
3
Motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits (currently lodged at Doc. 349); (6) Avago’s
4
Motion for Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 312); (7) TriQuint’s Opposition
5
to Avago’s Motion for Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 344); (8) Declaration
6
of Debbie Burke in Support of TriQuint’s Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary
7
Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 346); (9) TriQuint’s Responsive and Additional
8
Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Avago’s Motion for Summary Judgment
9
(currently lodged at Doc. 348); (10) Avago’s Response to TriQuint’s Motion for Partial
10
Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 347); (11) Declaration of Lueder Elbrecht in
11
Support of Avago’s Response to TriQuint’s Motion for Summary Judgment (currently
12
lodged at Doc. 351); (12) Declaration of Paul Muralt in Support of Avago’s Response to
13
TriQuint’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 352); (13)
14
Declaration of R.F. Milsom, Ph.D. in Support of Avago’s Response to TriQuint’s Motion
15
for Partial Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 353); and (14) Proposed
16
Declaration of Roger T. Howe, Ph.D. in Support of Avago’s Response to TriQuint’s Motion
17
for Partial Summary Judgment (currently lodged at Doc. 354).
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TriQuint’s Motion to Seal to Certain Items in its
Notice of Errata (Doc. 405; Doc. 393-Notice) is granted.
20
The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the original unredacted versions of the
21
Proposed Declaration of David J. Palmer in Support of TriQuint’s Notice of Errata
22
(currently lodged at Doc. 396).
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the Parties’ withdrawal of
24
confidentiality designations of certain documents, and to the extent this Order requires, the
25
Parties shall file updated redacted public versions of all Motions and related documents that
26
are subjects of this Order.
27
The Court notes that Avago filed a Notice of Motion to Seal the Lodged Proposed
28
- 13 -
1
Version of its Motion to Preclude Argument that TriQuint and Dr. Aigner Did Not Have
2
Notice and Knowledge of Potential Litigation When TriQuint Destroyed Evidence and
3
Motion for Expedited Consideration (Doc. 373-Notice) on October 4, 2011. The Court is
4
unable to locate a copy of the Motion to Seal that should have been filed within twenty-one
5
days of the filing of the Motion to Preclude (Doc. 374), which was filed on October 4, 2011.
6
Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avago shall file a Motion to Seal2
7
Doc. 374 within five days of the date of this Order. If Avago does not file a Motion to Seal
8
Doc. 374 within five days of the date of this Order, the Notice of the Motion to Seal (Doc.
9
373) will be denied with prejudice.3
10
DATED this 12th day of December, 2011.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
This Motion to Seal should provide the Court with compelling reasons why
carefully redacted portions of information should be sealed.
3
27
28
The Court will not grant any further extensions to either Party to file Motions to
Seal. If the Parties do not timely file Motions to Seal in the future, the Court will order the
documents to be filed unsealed without further notice.
- 14 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?