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

Filing 1365

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL.(Granting in part and denying in part (1360 in case 4:10-cv-03724-CW; and 603 in case 4:10-cv-05254-CW. ) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015)

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

ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket No. 1360)

Defendants.
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. 603)

v.

17

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al.,

18

Defendants.
________________________________/

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations,
LLC’s (USEI) administrative motion to seal (Case No. 10-3724,
Docket No. 1360; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 603).
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
entitled to protection under the law.”

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

Any

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable

1

material.

Id.

The request must be supported by the designating

2

party’s declaration establishing that the information is sealable.

3

Id. subsection (d).
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

4
5

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

6

records and documents.’”

7

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

8

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

9

[as] the starting point.”

In considering a sealing

Id.

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

11

motion bears the burden of establishing “compelling reasons

12

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

13

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

14

Id. at 1178-79.

15

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

16

of the judicial process and of significant public events.”

17

at 1179.

This is because dispositive motions represent

Id.

18
19

Case No.

USEI seeks leave to file under seal certain exhibits

20

10-3724

to its Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s

21

Docket No.

November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order.

22

1360

1. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert J. Leonard
in support of USEI’s Motion to Alter or Amend the

23
24

Case No.

Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order

25

10-5254

(Leonard Declaration).

26

Docket No.

excerpts of the Corrected Expert Report regarding

27

603

infringement of the patents-in-suit by Intervenor

28
2

Exhibit B comprises

1

Intel, prepared by Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher,

2

USEI’s infringement expert.

3

GRANTED because USEI has limited its request to

4

excerpts containing confidential source code.

The motion is

2. Exhibit C to the Leonard Declaration.

5

Exhibit C

6

comprises an excerpt of the May 29, 2014

7

Deposition of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, USEI’s

8

infringement expert.

9

any sealable information in this document.

There does not appear to be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, USEI’s request for leave to file

11

this document under seal is DENIED.

12
CONCLUSION
13
For the reason set forth above, USEI’s Administrative Motion
14
to File Under Seal (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1360; Case No.
15
10-5254, Docket No. 603) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
16
For the document for which the motion is GRANTED, within four days
17
of the date of this Order, USEI shall electronically file it under
18
seal.

For the document for which the motion is DENIED, the denial

19
is without prejudice.

USEI must submit, within seven days of the

20
date of this Order, a revised declaration justifying why the
21
document is sealable.

Otherwise, USEI must file the document in

22
the public record.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
25

February 3, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3