EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

Filing 651

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RE-FILE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL re 644 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to the Hannah Declaration In Support of Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed by Motorola Solutions, Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 28, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Case No. 12-cv-01011-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

ARUBA NETWORKS INC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
TO RE-FILE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 644.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is an Administrative Motion by Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc. and

14

Motorola Mobility LLC to file under seal their Responsive Claims Construction Brief and exhibits

15

to the declaration in support of that brief. Dkt. No. 644. Defendants are ordered to re-file.

16

Defendants’ filings do not state which entity or entity has designated the purportedly

17

sealable material to be confidential. Dkt. No. 644. The Court requires this information in order to

18

properly dispose of the Motion under Rule 79-5 of the civil local rules. Defendants shall re-file

19

their Motion, stating clearly who has declared the information to be confidential. If another party

20

has designated the information to be confidential, Defendants shall provide proof that they have

21

informed the designating party of the specific information Defendants seek to reference. If

22

Defendants have themselves declared the information confidential, they are advised to revise their

23

declaration in order to establish that good cause exists for confidentiality.

24

When a party moves to reference documents under seal that have been designated

25

confidential by another party, the designating party must submit a declaration establishing that the

26

document is sealable. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “If the designating party does not file its

27

responsive declaration . . . , the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public

28

record.” Id. In this case, neither the Motion nor the Proposed Order identifies which materials

1

Defendants seek to reference. Dkt. No. 644. Defendants filed their declaration in support of the

2

Motion under seal. No. 644, Attachment No. 1. They have not provided a Notice of Service

3

demonstrating that they provided the declaration in support of the Motion, the unredacted version

4

of the Responsive Claims Construction Brief, and the unredacted version of the declaration in

5

support of the Responsive Claims Construction Brief, to any other party. If a party other than

6

Defendants designated the material to be confidential, it appears that that party may not have had

7

an opportunity to file a declaration in support of continued confidentiality. This opportunity must

8

be provided before the Court can act on the Motion.
If Defendants are the designating party, the declaration they have filed in support of the

9

request to file under seal is insufficient. Because the public interest favors filing all court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

documents in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under seal must demonstrate

12

good cause to do so. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). This

13

cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by

14

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be

15

supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity that the information is

16

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civil

17

Local Rule 79-5(a).
Finally, the Motion and Proposed Order both state that Defendants are moving to “file

18
19

under seal Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief.” The Court presumes that

20

Defendants request only to redact portions of the brief, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c), rather than

21

to file an entire brief under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(b), but Defendants should take this

22

opportunity to clarify.
The Court orders Defendants to re-file, within five days of this order, a new Motion and, if

23
24

necessary, a new declaration in support of that Motion. If Defendants do not intend to alter the

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

contents of their proposed Responsive Claim Construction Brief, and their declaration in support

2

of that brief, then there is no need to submit additional copies of those documents.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2013

5
________________________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3