Copytele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting in part and denying in part 53 Defendant AUO's Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

COPYTELE, INC.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0380 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al.,

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
AUO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Defendants.
(Docket No. 53)

13
___________________________________/
14
15
16

AUO has filed an administrative motion, asking that certain documents or portions of a

17

document be filed under seal. The Court has reviewed the motion and hereby GRANTS in part and

18

DENIES in part the request for relief.

19

1.

With respect to the motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration, only page 6, lines

20

24 to page 7, line 1 may be filed under seal. CopyTele shall publicly file the other excerpts from the

21

motion as their contents have already been disclosed via CopyTele’s complaint, which included as

22

attachments the bulk of the two agreements at issue. Although AUO asserts that CopyTele should

23

have filed the agreements in their entirety under seal pursuant to the parties’ agreements (more

24

specifically, Schedule G of each agreement), a sealing is not justified simply because of an

25

agreement between parties. It is telling that AUO has never asked the Court to seal the agreements

26

that were filed publicly filed by CopyTele on the basis of confidentiality concerns.

27
28

2.

With respect to Exhibits 1 and 2 to the O’Connor declaration, the request to file under

seal is denied without prejudice. AUO shall review the exhibits – i.e., the agreements – and make a

1

more narrowly tailored request to file under seal within three days of the date of this order. In

2

making this request, AUO should bear in mind that the bulk of the agreements (aside from the

3

schedules) has already been disclosed in conjunction with CopyTele’s filing of its complaint. To the

4

extent AUO asks that any of the schedules be filed under seal, it must explain with specificity why a

5

filing under seal is justified. The mere fact that the parties agreed between themselves that the

6

agreements would be treated as confidential is insufficient.

7

To the extent the Court has granted CopyTele’s motion to file under seal, CopyTele shall

days of the date of this order. See Gen. Order No. 62 (providing that, “[i]f a motion to file under

10

seal is granted in part or full, the requesting party will e-file the document under seal according to

11
For the Northern District of California

make the appropriate electronic filing under seal, as required by General Order No. 62, within three

9

United States District Court

8

the procedures outlined in the FAQs on the ECF website”). Similarly, where the Court has ordered

12

CopyTele to make a public filing, it shall do so within three days of the date of this order.

13

This order disposes of Docket No. 53.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: June 5, 2013

18
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2