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 -