U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 1314

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL (granting (1296) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (1305) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting (1306) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (1309) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW; granting (574) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting (575) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (576) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW ) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.
ACER, INC., et al.,

8
9

Defendants,

ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos.
1296, 1305, 1306
and 1309)

and

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 10-3724 CW

ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

11

Intervenors.
________________________________/

12
13
14

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

15

Plaintiff,

16
17

v.
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

18
19

No. C 10-5254 CW
ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 574,
575 and 576)

Defendants,
and

20

ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

21

Intervenors.
________________________________/

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal
filed by multiple parties.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under
seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be
sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

1

entitled to protection under the law.”

2

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable

3

material.

4

party’s declaration establishing that the information is sealable.

5

Id. subsection (d).

6

Id.

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Any

The request must be supported by the designating

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

7

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

8

records and documents.’”

9

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
In considering a sealing

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

request, the Court begins with “a strong presumption of access

11

[as] the starting point.”

12

Id.

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive

13

motion bears the burden of establishing “compelling reasons

14

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

15

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

16

Id. at 1178-79.

17

“the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding

18

of the judicial process and of significant public events.”

19

at 1179.

20

This is because dispositive motions represent

Id.

The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with

21

equal force to non-dispositive motions, which may be only

22

“tangentially related” to the underlying cause of action.

23

at 1179-80.

24

dispositive motions must show good cause by making a

25

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

26

result” should the information be disclosed.

27

26(c).

28

not suffice.

Id.

A party seeking to seal materials related to non-

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

“[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm” will
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
2

1

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).

These different standards are applied

2

as relevant to the documents addressed below.
The Court provides the following rulings on the parties’

3
4

motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.

5

Case No. 10-3724

6

Docket

7

No.

8

1296

Ruling

Intervenor Intel seeks permission to file under seal
unredacted versions of Exhibit 15, and certain

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(575 in

attachments to that exhibit, to the Declaration of

11

10-5254)

Sean Nation in support of Plaintiff USEI’s Notice of

12
13

Supplemental Authority and Motion to Supplement.
1. Exhibit 15 is USEI’s Supplemental Expert’s

14

Report regarding damages and exhibits for the

15

various Defendants and Intervenors.

16

redacted portions of this document contain

17

confidential sales information of Defendants

18

and Intervenors.

19

regarding a confidential business agreement.

20

The

It also contains information

2. The redacted portions of the accompanying

21

exhibits to Exhibit 15 contain highly specific

22

and recent financial information regarding

23

sales about each of the Defendants and

24

Intervenors.

25

All Defendants and Intervenors have filed

26

declarations in support of this request.

27

to file under seal unredacted versions of these

28
3

The motion

1

documents is GRANTED because the request is

2

associated with a non-dispositive motion and because

3

Intel and the declarants have limited the redacted

4

information to confidential information only (Case

5

No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1296 and Case No. 10-5254,

6

Docket No. 575).

7

request to file under seal was granted, within four

8

days of the date of this Order, Intel shall

9

electronically file under seal unredacted versions

For those documents for which the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of these documents, and shall file redacted versions

11

of these documents in the public record.

12
13

1305

Intervenor Intel moves to file under seal all or
parts of the following documents in connection with

14
15

(576 in

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary

16

10-5254)

Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive

17
18

Motions:
1. The Motion and Opposition itself.

The redacted

19

portions of these documents contain references

20

to confidential business agreements, detailed

21

sales information and product specifications.

22

The motion to file under seal unredacted

23

versions of these documents is GRANTED because

24

Intel limits the redacted material to

25

confidential information only.

26
27

2. Exhibits 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 34-40 and
63-65 to the Constant Declaration.

28
4

Intel

1

represents that USEI has designated these

2

documents as confidential, but there appears to

3

be no declaration from USEI as to why these

4

documents should be filed under seal.

5

Accordingly, with regard to these documents,

6

the motion is DENIED.

7

must file a declaration justifying why these

8

documents are sealable.

9

so, unredacted versions of these documents must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Within seven days, USEI

If USEI fails to do

be filed in the public record.
3. Exhibits 2-7, 9, 12-14, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29-32,

12

53 and 55-58 to the Constant Declaration.

13

These documents comprise excerpts of other

14

documents and contain confidential technical,

15

financial and/or business information.

16

motion to file these documents under seal, in

17

their entirety, is GRANTED because the

18

documents contain only confidential

19

information.

20
21

The

Intervenor Intel also moves to file under seal:
4. Exhibit 29 to the Justin L. Constant

22

Declaration in Support of its Motion for

23

Administrative Relief to Seal Confidential

24

Information.

25

the deposition of Reid Kells, an Intel

26

employee.

27

document refer to confidential customer lists,

This document is an excerpt of

The redacted portions of this

28
5

1

business practices and testing procedures.

The

2

motion to file under seal an unredacted version

3

of this document is GRANTED because the request

4

is associated with a non-dispositive

5

declaration and because Intel limits the

6

redacted material to confidential information

7

only.

8

Intervenor Intel moves to file under seal all or

9

parts of the following documents in connection with

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

USEI’s Notice of Supplemental Authority and Motion

11

to Supplement:

12

5. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Sean Nation in

13

Support of USEI’s Notice of Supplemental

14

Authority and Motion to Supplement (Nation

15

Declaration).

16

Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, USEI’s

17

infringement expert, and accompanying exhibits

18

regarding alleged infringement by Intervenor

19

Intel.

20

is filed under seal at Docket Nos. 1238-3 and

21

1238-4.

22

this document in six parts.

23

This document is the Expert’s

The unredacted version of this document

In Docket No. 1305, Intel has filed

a. Part One is the Base Report.

The redacted

24

portions of this document contain

25

confidential source code and internal

26

documentation.

27

seal an unredacted version of this

28
6

The motion to file under

1

document is GRANTED because the request is

2

associated with a non-dispositive motion

3

and because Intel limits the redacted

4

material to confidential information only.

5

b. Parts Two through Six comprise Dr.

6

Mitzenmacher’s resume and the patent

7

applications for the patents-in-suit.

8

There does not appear to be any sealable

9

information in this document.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, the motion to file under

11

seal, with regards to this document, is

12

DENIED.

13

6. Exhibit 2 to the Nation Declaration.

This

14

document is the Corrected Expert Report of Dr.

15

Michael Mitzenmacher, USEI’s Infringement

16

Expert, for Intervenor Intel.

17

version of this document is filed under seal at

18

Docket Nos. 1238-5 and 1238-6.

19

1305-10 and 1306-11, Intel has filed this

20

document in two parts.

21

of both of these documents contain confidential

22

source code, descriptions of confidential

23

source code and internal documentation.

24

motion to file under seal an unredacted version

25

of this document is GRANTED because the request

26

is associated with a non-dispositive motion and

27

because Intel limits the redacted material to

28
7

The unredacted

In Docket Nos.

The redacted portions

The

1
2

confidential information only.
7. Exhibit 11 of the Nation Declaration.

This

3

document is the Supplemental Expert Report of

4

Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, USEI’s Infringement

5

Expert, for Intervenor Intel.

6

version of this document is filed under seal at

7

Docket No. 1238-13.

8

this document contain confidential source code.

9

The motion to file under seal an unredacted

The unredacted

The redacted portions of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

version of this document is GRANTED because the

11

request is associated with a non-dispositive

12

motion and because Intel limits the redacted

13

material to confidential information only.

14

8. Exhibit 14 to the Justin L. Constant

15

Declaration in support of Intervenors’ and

16

Defendants’ Opposition to USEI’s Motion to

17

Supplement the Record and for Leave to Serve

18

Supplemental Reports (Constant Declaration).

19

Exhibit 14 is the First Supplemental Expert

20

Report of Walter Bratic, USEI’s Damages Expert.

21

The redacted portions of this document contain

22

confidential details regarding a commercial

23

agreement between Intel, 3Com, and Xircom.

24

motion to file under seal an unredacted version

25

of this document is GRANTED because the request

26

is associated with a non-dispositive motion and

27

because Intel limits the redacted material to

28
8

The

1
2

only confidential information.
9. Exhibit 15 to the Constant Declaration.
Exhibit 15 is the Second Supplemental Expert

4

Report of Walter Bratic, USEI’s Damages Expert.

5

This document contains confidential details

6

regarding a commercial agreement between Intel,

7

3Com, and Xircom and contains confidential

8

sales information.

9

seal an unredacted version of this document is

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

GRANTED because the request is associated with

11

a non-dispositive motion and because Intel

12

limits the redacted material to only

13

confidential information.

The motion to file under

14

Accordingly, Intel’s motion to seal is GRANTED in

15

part and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Case

16

No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1305; Case No. 10-5254,

17

Docket No. 576).

18

request to file under seal was granted, within four

19

days of the date of this Order, Intel shall

20

electronically file under seal unredacted versions

21

of these documents, and shall file redacted versions

22

of these documents in the public record.

23

documents for which the motion to file under seal is

24

denied, the denials are without prejudice.

25

must submit, within seven days, a revised

26

declaration remedying the deficiencies above.

27

those documents designated as confidential by

For those documents for which the

28
9

For those

Intel

For

1

another party, the designating party must file,

2

within four days of the date of this Order, a

3

declaration justifying why the document is sealable.

4

Any document for which these requirements are not

5

met must be filed in the public record.

6
7

1306

Intervenor Atheros moves to file under seal all or

8

part of the following documents in support of

9

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive

11

Motions:

12

1. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of John W.

13

McCauley (McCauley Declaration).

14

the Rebuttal Report of Dr. Bill Lin.

15

redacted portions of this document contain

16

confidential source code.

17

under seal an unredacted version of this

18

document is GRANTED because Atheros limits the

19

redacted material to confidential information

20

only.

21

Exhibit 1 is
The

The motion to file

2. Exhibit 2 to the McCauley Declaration.

Exhibit

22

2 is the Expert Witness Report of Dr. Michael

23

Mitzenmacher Regarding Infringment of the ‘313

24

Patent by Atheros.

25

this document contain confidential source code.

26

The motion to file under seal an unredacted

27

version of this document is GRANTED because

28
10

The redacted portions of

1

Atheros limits the redacted material to

2

confidential information only.

3

Intervenor Atheros also moves to file under seal all

4

or part of the following documents in support of

5

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Opposition to USEI’s

6

Motion to Supplement the Record and for Leave to

7

Serve Supplemental Reports:

8
9

3. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of John W.
McCauley (McCauley Declaration).

Exhibit 1 is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the Rebuttal Report of Dr. Bill Lin.

The

11

redacted portions of this document contain

12

confidential source code.

13

under seal an unredacted version of this

14

document is GRANTED because the document is

15

filed in connection with a non-dispositive

16

motion and because Atheros limits the redacted

17

material to confidential information only.

18

4. Exhibit 5 to the McCauley Declaration is the

The motion to file

19

Expert Witness Report of Dr. Michael

20

Mitzenmacher Regarding Infringment of the ‘313

21

Patent by Atheros.

22

this document contain confidential source code.

23

The motion to file under seal an unredacted

24

version of this document is GRANTED because the

25

document is filed in connection with a non-

26

dispositive motion and because Atheros limits

27

the redacted material to only confidential

28
11

The redacted portions of

information.

1

5. Exhibit 13 to the Declaration of D. Sean Nation

2
3

in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement

4

the Record and Notice of Supplemental

5

Authority.

6

contain confidential source code.

7

to file under seal an unredacted version this

8

document is GRANTED because the document is

9

filed in connection with a non-dispositive

The redacted portions of Exhibit 13
The motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion and because Atheros limits the redacted

11

material to confidential information only.

12

Accordingly, Intervenor Atheros’s motion to seal is

13

GRANTED (Docket No. 1306).

14

date of this Order, Atheros shall electronically

15

file under seal unredacted versions of these

16

documents, and shall file redacted versions of these

17

documents in the public record.

Within four days of the

18
19

1309

Intervenor Marvell (MSI) moves to file under seal

20

all or part of the following documents in support of

21

Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary

22

Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Dispositive

23

Motions:

24

1. Exhibit 66 is MSI’s Supplemental Objections and

25

Responses to USEI’s First Set of

26

Interrogatories (Nos. 1- 13).

27

was previously sealed, but in connection with a

28
12

This document

1

non-dispositive motion (Docket No. 1220).

In

2

its December 1, 2014 Order, the Court denied

3

MSI’s motion to seal this document because the

4

request was filed in connection with a

5

dispositive motion and was not narrowly

6

tailored as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

7

5(b).

8

request to file under seal an unredacted

9

version of this document was narrowly tailored,

However, in Docket No. 1261, MSI’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and that request was granted, albeit in

11

connection with a non-dispositive motion.

12

any case, MSI may file, in the public record,

13

the redacted version of this document as it

14

appears in Docket No. 1261 because MSI limits

15

the redacted material to confidential source

16

code information only.

In

17

2. Exhibit 68 is MSI’s Objections and Reponses to

18

USEI’s First Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-

19

55).

20

describe the proprietary structure and

21

operation of the accused Yukon Ethernet

22

Controllers.

23

unredacted version of this document is GRANTED

24

because MSI limits the redacted material to

25

confidential information only.

The redacted portions of this document

The motion to file under seal an

26

Intervenor MSI also moves to file under seal all or

27

part of the following documents filed in connection

28
13

1

with USEI’s Notice of Supplemental Authority and

2

Motion to Supplement:

3

3. Exhibit 4 is the Expert Witness Report of Dr.

4

Michael Mitzenmacher regarding Infringement by

5

MSI.

6

contain confidential source code.

7

to file seal an unredacted version of this

8

document is GRANTED because the document is

9

filed in connection with a non-dispositive

The redacted portions of this document
The motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion and MSI limits the redacted material to

11

confidential information only.

12

4. Exhibit 12 is the Supplemental Expert Witness

13

Report of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher regarding

14

Infringement by MSI.

15

this document contain confidential source code.

16

The motion to file under seal an unredacted

17

version of this document is GRANTED because the

18

document is filed in connection with a non-

19

dispositive motion and MSI limits the redacted

20

material to confidential information only.

21

5. Exhibit 15 is the Supplemental Expert Witness

The redacted portions of

22

Report of Walter Bratic, USEI’s damages expert.

23

Exhibits K1-K3 of this document contain MSI’s

24

confidential financial information.

25

previously moved to file this document under

26

seal (Docket No. 1238).

27

denied for failure to comply with Civil Local

28
14

USEI

That request was

1

Rule 79-5(b), which requires that requests to

2

seal be narrowly tailored.

3

in connection with this motion, a narrowly

4

tailored request that seeks to seal

5

confidential information only.

6

the motion to file this document under seal is

7

DENIED.

8

narrowly tailored version of this sealing

9

request no later than seven days from the date

MSI has not filed,

Accordingly,

MSI may resubmit a modified and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of this order.

If it does not do so, the

11

document must be filed in the public record.

12

Accordingly, MSI’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part

13

and DENIED in part, as set forth above (Docket No.

14

1309).

15

file under seal was granted, within four days of the

16

date of this Order, MSI shall electronically file

17

under seal unredacted versions of these documents,

18

and shall file redacted versions of these documents

19

in the public record.

20

the motion to file under seal is denied, the denial

21

is without prejudice.

22

days of the date of this Order, a revised

23

declaration remedying the deficiencies above.

24

document for which these requirements are not met

25

must be filed in the public record.

For those documents for which the request to

For those documents for which

MSI must submit, within seven

26
27
28
15

Any

1

Case No. 10-5254

2

574

Defendant AT&T Services (ATTS) moves to file under
seal an excerpt from the transcript of Walter

4

Bratic’s June 10-11, 2014 Deposition filed in

5

support of Intervenors’ and Defendants’ Motions for

6

Summary Judgment.

7

excerpt contain confidential sales and financial

8

information of ATTS.

9

an unredacted version of this document is GRANTED

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

(Docket No. 574) because ATTS limits the redacted

11

material to confidential information.

12

days of the date of this Order, ATTS shall

13

electronically file under seal an unredacted version

14

of this document, and shall file a redacted version

15

of this document in the public record.

The redacted portions of the

The motion to file under seal

Within four

16
17
18

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Intervenor Intel’s motion to

19

file under seal unredacted versions of USEI’s Supplemental

20

Expert’s Report regarding damages, and its accompanying exhibits,

21

is GRANTED (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1296; Case No. 10-5254,

22

Docket No. 575); Intervenor Intel’s motion to file under seal

23

various documents associated with Intervenors’ and Defendants’

24

Motions for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s

25

Dispositive Motion, and USEI’s Notice of Supplemental Authority

26

and Motion to Supplement, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

27

(Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1305; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No.

28
16

1

576); Intervenor Atheros’s motion to seal is GRANTED (Case No. 10-

2

3724, Docket No. 1306); Intervenor MSI’s motion to seal is GRANTED

3

in part and DENIED in part (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1309);

4

and Intervenor ATTS’s motion to seal is GRANTED (Case No. 10-5254,

5

Docket No. 574).

6

As noted above, for the documents for which the motion to

7

seal has been granted, within four days of the date of this Order,

8

the parties shall file under seal the unredacted versions of those

9

documents, and file redacted versions of these documents in the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

public record.
With regard to those documents where the motion to file under

12

seal was denied, the denials are without prejudice.

13

requesting sealing must submit, within seven days, a revised

14

declaration remedying the deficiencies noted above.

15

document has been designated confidential by a party other than

16

the party requesting sealing, the requesting party must also

17

provide proof of service on the designating party.

18

designating party must file, within four days of receiving notice,

19

a declaration justifying why the document is sealable.

20

document for which these requirements are not met must be filed in

21

the public record if the designating party has not justified

22

sealing, or if the deficiencies noted above are not remedied.

23
24
25

The party

If the

The

Any

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 19, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
17