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

Filing 1351

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE (1342 and 1344 in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW and 591 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.
ACER, INC., et al.,

8
9

Defendants.

ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 1342
and 1344)

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
16

Plaintiff,

No. C 10-5254 CW
(Docket No. 591)

v.

17

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

18

Defendants.
________________________________/

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Intervenor Marvell Semiconductors, Inc.’s
(MSI) administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No.
1342) and Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC’s (USEI)
administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1344;
Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 591).
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.

3
4

Case No.

In its December 19, 2014 Order, the Court denied MSI’s

5

10-3724,

motion to seal Exhibits K.1-K.3 of Exhibit 15 to the

6

Docket No.

Declaration of Sean Nation in Support of USEI’s Notice

7

1342

of Supplemental Authority and Motion to Supplement

8

(Nation Declaration).

The Court held that MSI’s

9

request was not narrowly tailored as required by Civil

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Local Rule 79-5(b).

The Court permitted MSI to

11

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored request

12

within seven days of the date of that Order.

13
14

In the present motion, again MSI seeks leave to file

15

under seal an unredacted version of Exhibits K.1-K.3

16

of Exhibit 15 to the Nation Declaration.

17

contains highly specific and recent financial

18

information regarding sales of MSI products.

19

motion is GRANTED because MSI limits the redacted

20

information to confidential financial and sales

21

information.

The document

The

22

Case No.

USEI seeks leave to file under seal certain exhibits

23

10-3724,

to its Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s

24

Docket No.

November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order.

25

1344

Leonard in support of USEI’s Motion to Alter

26
27

1. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Robert J.

Case No.

or Amend the Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary

28
3

1

10-5424,

Judgment Order (Leonard Declaration).

2

Docket No.

Exhibit A is a Joint Defense and

3

591

Confidentiality Agreement between Intel

4

Corporation and Texas Instruments in the

5

cases U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer,

6

Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-03724,

7

and U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Texas

8

Instruments, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-

9

491-LED-JDL.

Intervenor Intel has filed a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

declaration stating that the document is

11

sealable, in its entirety, because it

12

contains information not available to the

13

public.

14

document contains the terms of a

15

confidentiality agreement with regard to

16

shared information between Defendants and

17

Intervenors.

18

the Court finds that there does not appear to

19

be any sealable information in the document.

20

Accordingly, USEI’s motion for leave to file

21

this document under seal is DENIED.

22

2. Exhibit L to the Leonard Declaration.

Specifically, Intel states that the

Upon reviewing the document,

23

Exhibit L is an excerpt of the Rebuttal

24

Expert Report of Dr. Leonard Forys regarding

25

the non-infringement of the patents-in-suit.

26

USEI seeks to file under seal the entire

27

excerpt.

USEI states that this document has

28
4

1

been designated highly confidential by one or

2

more of the parties in this litigation;

3

however, no party has filed a declaration

4

stating why this excerpt is sealable as

5

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

6

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any

7

sealable information in the excerpt.

8

excerpt refers only to the Court’s claim

9

construction orders, which are available in

The

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the public record.

11

motion for leave to file this document under

12

seal is DENIED.

13

Accordingly, USEI’s

3. Exhibit M to the Leonard Declaration.

14

Exhibit M is an excerpt of the transcript of

15

the July 9, 2014 videotaped deposition of Dr.

16

Forys on behalf of USEI.

17

under seal the entire excerpt.

18

that this document has been designated highly

19

confidential by one or more of the parties in

20

this litigation; however, no party has filed

21

a declaration stating why this excerpt is

22

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

23

5(e).

24

be any sealable information in the excerpt.

25

The excerpt refers to the Court’s claim

26

construction and page numbers of the rebuttal

27

report, but does not contain any source code

USEI seeks to file
USEI states

Furthermore, there does not appear to

28
5

1

or other sealable information.

Accordingly,

2

USEI’s motion for leave to file this document

3

under seal is DENIED.
4. Exhibit O to the Leonard Declaration.

4

Exhibit O is an excerpt of the transcript of

6

the July 22, 2014 videotaped deposition of

7

Dr. Ian Crawford.

8

document has been designated highly

9

confidential by one or more of the parties in

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

this litigation; however, no party has filed

11

a declaration stating why this excerpt is

12

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

13

5(e).

14

to file this document under seal is DENIED.

15

Thus, USEI’s administrative motion for leave to file

16

under seal is DENIED (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No.

17

1344; Case No. 10-5424, Docket No. 591).

USEI states that this

Accordingly, USEI’s motion for leave

18
CONCLUSION
19
For the reason set forth above, MSI’s Administrative Motion
20
to File Under Seal (Docket No. 1342) is GRANTED.

Accordingly,

21
within four days of the date of this Order, MSI shall
22
electronically file under seal an unredacted version of this
23
document, and shall file a redacted version in the public record.
24
USEI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Case No. 1025
3724, Docket No. 1344; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 591) is
26
DENIED.

The denial is without prejudice.

USEI, or the

27
designating party, must submit, within seven days, a revised
28
6

1

declaration remedying the deficiencies noted above.

2

designating party does not file a declaration justify sealing, the

3

document must be filed in the public record.

4

party does file a declaration justifying sealing, USEI may refile

5

the motion to seal and the Court will decide if the deficiencies

6

noted above have been remedied.

7
8
9

If the designating

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 12, 2015
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

If the

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7