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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?