Medtronic, Inc. et al v. AGA Medical Corporation

Filing 1083

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S NOVEMBER 23, 2009 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 4, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION, Defendant / MEDTRONIC, INC., Plaintiff No. 07-00567 MMC ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S NOVEMBER 23, 2009 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before the Court is defendant's administrative request, filed November 23, 2009, to file under seal Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Steven D. Hemminger ISO AGA's Motion in Limine to Preclude Prof. Janicke's Testimony and Opinions (1) Regarding Inequitable Conduct, and (2) Included in His Suppl. Rebuttal Expert Report Regarding File Histories, Obviousness-Type Double Patenting, and Applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 121. Having read and considered the administrative request, the Court rules as follows. Defendant seeks leave to file under seal the entirety of the above-referenced exhibit on the ground that plaintiff has designated the entirety of such document as confidential. Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any material designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion for a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). "Within five days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality." Id. "If the designating party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record." Id. Here, the designating party, plaintiff, has not filed a responsive declaration within the requisite time. Accordingly, the administrative request is hereby DENIED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the above-referenced exhibit in the public record. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2