Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1075

ORDER REFERRING PENDING MOTIONS TO SEAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/31/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC., a
Delaware corporation; SPANSION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ADVANCED
SEMICONDUCTOR ENGINEERING, INC.;
ASE (U.S.), INC.; CHIPMOS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; CHIPMOS
U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,

15

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC.,

ORDER REFERRING
PENDING MOTIONS TO
SEAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTIONS
TO SPECIAL MASTER

Defendants.
________________________________/

16

No. C 05-4063 CW

17
18
19

No. C 10-945 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
TESSERA, INC.,

20

Defendant.

21

________________________________/

22

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC.,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
TESSERA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

No. C 11-6121 CW

1

TESSERA, INC.,

2
3
4
5
6

No. C 12-692 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI
TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,
Defendants.

7

________________________________/

8

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/

9

The Court hereby refers all motions to seal connected to the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

parties’ dispositive motions in the above-captioned cases to the
11
Special Master for adjudication.

These motions “cannot be

12
effectively and timely addressed” by this Court, see Federal Rule
13
of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), and the Court has determined that
14
the Special Master already addressing discovery matters in these
15
cases will be able to review these issues more thoroughly.
16
In referring these motions, the Court wishes to draw the
17
Special Master’s attention to a number of issues that have been
18
presented with the motions to seal currently pending or previously
19
resolved in these cases.

In many of these motions and the

20
supporting declarations, some or all of the parties have
21
repeatedly made conclusory statements that the documents are
22
confidential, of a sensitive nature or subject to a protective
23
order, without providing facts that could establish that the need
24
to prevent public disclosure of the documents outweighs “the
25
general history of access and the public policies favoring
26
disclosure’” of information contained in court files.

Pintos v.

27
Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation
28
2

1

omitted).

2

blanket protective order that allows a party to designate

3

documents as sealable[] will not suffice to allow the filing of

4

documents under seal”).

5

seek to seal the entirety of a document when the purportedly

6

confidential information appears in only a portion thereof.

7

some instances, the parties have asserted that documents are

8

sealable for multiple reasons without clearly indicating to which

9

portion of the document each reason corresponds.

See also Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) (noting that “a

Some requests have been unduly broad and

In

The Special

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Master may take appropriate measures to address failures to comply

11

with the standards for sealing documents set forth in the

12

applicable case law and Civil Local Rules, including, but not

13

limited to, denial of requests, reprimands, and imposition of

14

cost-shifting sanctions.

15

Further, the Court asks the Special Master to reconsider

16

whether there are compelling reasons to seal the license

17

agreements in these cases.

18

Special Master need not consider that this Court previously has

19

granted permission to the seal these agreements.

20

that it may revisit its prior orders following the Special

21

Master’s consideration of this issue.

In making this determination, the

The Court notes

22

Within three days of the date of this Order, each party who

23

has filed a pending motion to seal is directed to provide a copy

24

of that motion to seal and the documents that it seeks to seal to

25

the Special Master.

26

motion a copy of all declarations that have been filed in support

27

of the motion by that date and shall notify the parties that

28

submitted the declarations that it did so.

That party shall compile and attach to the

3

Parties who file a

1

declaration in support of a pending motion to seal after that date

2

shall provide the Special Master with a copy of their declaration

3

clearly labeled with the docket number of the motion to seal that

4

it supports.

5

sealing of separate portions of a document, the parties shall

6

ensure that they clearly identify which reasons correspond to

7

which portions by notations or highlighting in the documents

8

submitted to the Special Master.

9

If there are different reasons supporting the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: 8/31/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4