Micron Technology, Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corporation et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING IN PART RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 27, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-06932-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING
IN PART RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF

Defendants.

12
Before the Court is plaintiff Micron Technology, Inc.'s "Administrative Motion to File

13
14

Under Seal," filed August 13, 2018, and a declaration in support thereof. In response

15

thereto, defendant United Microelectronics Corporation has filed a responsive

16

declaration, as has non-party Applied Materials, Inc. Having read and considered the

17

papers filed in support of and in response to the motion, the Court rules as follows.

18

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal each of the following

19

documents, the motion is hereby GRANTED, plaintiff having filed in the public record

20

redacted versions thereof that are sufficiently "narrowly tailored," see Civil L.R. 79-5(b)

21

(providing request "must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material"):
a. The unredacted version of the Supplemental Opposition to Motion to

22
23

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction;

24

b. The unredacted version of the Declaration of Dr. David Liu;

25

c. The unredacted version of the Declaration of Victor Kelly;

26

d. The unredacted version of the Declaration of Michael Bandemer and the

27

unredacted versions of Exhibits 3-6 thereto.

28

//

1

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 6-8, 10-22, 24-25,

2

27-32, 39-45, 47-48 to the Declaration of Douglas L. Clark, the motion is hereby

3

GRANTED, the designating party or parties having shown the entirety of said documents

4

are properly filed under seal.

5

3. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit 23 to the

6

Declaration of Douglas L. Clark, the motion is hereby DENIED, the designating party,

7

defendant, having failed to show the document is properly filed under seal, see Civil L.R.

8

79-5(e)1) (providing designating party must show "designated material is sealable"), and

9

plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file said exhibit in the public record "no earlier than 4

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

days, and no later than 10 days, after" August 27, 2018, see Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
4. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 1-4 and 26 to the

12

Declaration of Douglas L. Clark, ruling on the motion is hereby DEFERRED, the

13

designating party or parties having failed to show the entirety of said documents are

14

properly filed under seal, but it appearing that some portions thereof are properly filed

15

under seal; the Court hereby affords the parties leave to file, no later than September 3,

16

2018, a supplemental declaration or declarations identifying the specific portions of said

17

exhibits that comprise material properly filed under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: August 27, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2