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

Filing 760

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE INTERVERNOR NVIDIA CORPORATIONS ( 755 in 4:10-cv-03724-CW) MOTION TO SEAL AND ADDRESSING DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS (Docket Nos. 756 in 10-3724 and 442 in 10-5254) MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/17/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013)

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
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

v.
ACER, INC.; ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION; APPLE, INC.; ASUS
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL; ASUSTEK
COMPUTER, INC.; DELL, INC.;
FUJITSU, LTD.; FUJITSU AMERICA,
INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT
PACKARD CO.; SONY CORPORATION;
SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY
ELECTRONICS INC.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA,
INC.; and TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

16
17

INTEL CORPORATION; NVIDIA
CORPORATION; MARVELL
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATHEROS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
BROADCOM CORPORATION,
Intervenors.

18
19
20

________________________________/
U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
INTERVERNOR NVIDIA
CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 755 in
10-3724) AND
ADDRESSING
DEFENDANTS’ AND
INTERVENORS’
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 756
in 10-3724 and 442
in 10-5254)

Defendants,

14
15

No. C 10-3724 CW

v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC; BARNES &
NOBLE, INC.; CLAIRE’S BOUTIQUES,
INC.; J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.;
SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC.; ANN
TAYLOR STORES CORPORATION; ANN
TAYLOR RETAIL, INC.; HARLEYDAVIDSON, INC.; HARLEY-DAVIDSON
MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; KIRKLAND’S
INC.; KIRKLAND’S STORES, INC.;
MACY’S, INC.; MACY’S RETAIL
HOLDINGS, INC.; MACY’S WEST
STORES, INC.; NEW YORK & COMPANY,

No. C 10-5254 CW

1
2
3

INC.; LERNER NEW YORK, INC.;
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION; RENT-ACENTER, INC.; and THE DRESS BARN,
INC.,
Defendants.

4

________________________________/

5

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS,
COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS
________________________________/

6
7

Intervenor NVIDIA Corporation moves to seal portions of the
8
declaration of Paul Sidenblad offered in support of the motion for
9
partial summary judgment filed by Defendants and Intervenors and
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Exhibits A through F to the Sidenblad declaration.
11
These documents are connected to a dispositive motion.

To

12
establish that these documents are sealable, NVIDIA “must overcome
13
a strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
14
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
15
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
16
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
17
(citation omitted).

This cannot be established simply by showing

18
that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating
19
in general terms that the material is considered to be
20
confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration
21
demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document
22
under seal.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

23
NVIDIA has filed a declaration stating that it has designated
24
the relevant documents as “Highly Confidential” under the interim
25
protective order and that they contain information that “generally
26
relates to: (1) highly sensitive technical information concerning
27
NVIDIA products accused by USEI; (2) a confidential license
28
2

1

agreement and communication between NVIDIA and 3Com Corporation;

2

and (3) highly sensitive NVIDIA source code.”

3

¶ 3.

4

Gregorian Decl.

NVIDIA only describes the subject matter of the exhibits and

5

makes conclusory statements that it considers the material to be

6

confidential or sensitive.

7

it would experience if this material were publicly disclosed or to

8

provide any specific reasons, supported by facts, that could

9

outweigh the public policy favoring public access to court

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NVIDIA has failed to state what harm

filings.
Accordingly, NVIDIA’s motion to file under seal is DENIED.

12

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), within four days of the date

13

of this Order, NVIDIA may re-submit the documents for filing in

14

the public record or it may retain the documents and not make them

15

part of the record in this case.

16

NVIDIA may renew its request to file under seal, supported by a

17

proper declaration that establishes that the documents are

18

sealable as discussed above.

19

Alternatively, by that date,

Intervenor Intel Corporation has filed a motion to seal on

20

behalf of all Defendants and Intervenors seeking to file under

21

seal the following documents: (1) their motion for partial summary

22

judgment; (2) the declaration of Jesse Brandeburg with Exhibit 1;

23

(3) the declaration of Itamar Sharoni with Exhibits 1-3; (4) the

24

declaration of Thomas Insley with Exhibits A and B; (5) the

25

declaration of John R. Schiffhauer; and (6) the declaration of

26

Justin Constant with Exhibits A.1 through A.24.

27

Defendants and Intervenors state that the “Brandeburg and Sharoni

28

Exhibits contain highly confidential descriptions of Intel source
3

In the motion,

1

code and products, and attach excerpts of design documents that

2

Intel maintained as confidential, and information from Intel’s

3

source code version control database,” and that the “Insley

4

declaration discusses financial and licensing information that

5

Intel maintains as highly confidential.”

6

They also state that the “Constant Declaration contains exhibits

7

that pertain to confidential third-party licenses and licensing

8

practices, third-party sales and financial data, and deposition

9

testimony designated” as confidential under the interim protective

Docket No. 756, 2-3.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

order.

11

summary judgment “discusses the confidential information contained

12

in the supporting declarations and exhibits attached thereto.”

13

Id.

14

Id. at 3.

They further state that the motion for partial

Intel has submitted a declaration in support of the motion to

15

seal in which it states that “Local Rule 79-5(d) provides the

16

mechanism for Defendants and Intervenors to submit that material

17

under seal.”

18

sets forth the procedure for a party to file under seal

19

information that has been designated as confidential by another

20

party, not by itself.

21

Intervenors seek to file under seal documents or information that

22

they themselves have designated as confidential, as appears to be

23

the case for at least the Brandeburg, Sharoni and Insley

24

declarations and their attached exhibits, Local Rule 79-5(b) and

25

(c) provide the relevant procedure.1

Stephens Decl. ¶ 2.

However, Local Rule 79-5(d)

To the extent that Defendants and

The Court notes that, in the

26
1

27
28

They do not address why they seek to seal the Schiffauer
declaration or which party or non-party has designated that
document as confidential.
4

1

only supporting declaration filed thus far, Intel has not provided

2

compelling reasons to seal these documents.2

3

although Defendants and Intervenors suggest that non-parties have

4

designated the exhibits to the Constant Declaration as

5

confidential, they have not disclosed who these non-parties are or

6

provided proof that they have served these non-parties with notice

7

of their motion to seal.

In addition,

8

Accordingly, within one day of the date of this Order,

9

Defendants and Intervenors shall file a declaration setting forth

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

which party or non-party has designated each of the relevant

11

documents or information as confidential and shall provide proof

12

that they have served all non-parties with their motion to seal

13

and information about which documents and information they are

14

attempting to file.

15

the designating party, by that date, Defendants and Intervenors

16

shall also file their declarations in support of their motion to

17

seal, providing compelling reasons to seal the information.

If Defendants and Intervenors themselves are

18

In the future, when filing motions to seal, all parties shall

19

make clear which party or non-party has designated as confidential

20

each purportedly sealable document and, if relevant, shall provide

21

proof of service upon non-parties.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: 5/17/2013

25
26
27
28

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

2

As discussed above, because Defendants and Intervenors seek
to seal documents related to a dispositive motion, the compelling
reason standard applies to the motion to seal, not a good cause
standard.
5