MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 87 MediaTek's Administrative Motion to Seal on Reply ; Directing Freescale to File Patrick Declarations in Public Record. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

MEDIATEK INC.,

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

Case No.: 11-cv-5341 YGR
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MEDIATEK’S MOTION TO
SEAL ON REPLY (DKT. NO. 87);
(2) DIRECTING FREESCALE TO FILE PATRICK
DECLARATIONS IN PUBLIC RECORD

14
15
16

Defendant.
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Mediatek, Inc. (“Mediatek”) filed a Stipulated Administrative

17

Motion to File Documents Under Seal. (Dkt. No. 87.) Mediatek seeks therein to seal certain

18

portions of its brief and a declaration of Christopher A. Franklin, submitted in support of its Reply to

19

Motion For Leave To Amend Its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.

20

Mediatek’s motion was based on its stipulated joint protective order with Defendant Freescale

21

Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”), and Freescale’s designation of certain documents as confidential

22

under that protective order. On April 26, 2013, Freescale filed a declaration of attorney Mark Patrick

23

in support of the Motion to File Under Seal. (Dkt. No. 88.)

24

The less stringent Rule 26(c) “good cause” standard applies to private documents submitted

25

in connection with non-dispositive motions, since such motions are often unrelated or only

26

tangentially related to the merits of the underlying claims. Pintos, 565 F.3d at 1116; Kamakana, 447

27

F.3d at 1179-80. Under Rule 26(c), a court may seal the documents “to protect a party or person

28

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including requiring that

1

trade secret or confidential information not be revealed. F.R.C.P. 26(c)(1)(G). Simply entering into

2

a blanket, stipulated protective order does not, on its own, establish “good cause” under Rule 26(c).

3

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (“the hazard of stipulated protective orders. . . [is that they] often

4

contain provisions that purport to put the entire litigation under lock and key without regard to the

5

actual requirements of . . . making an individualized determination as to specific documents.”)

6

Here, the documents sought to be sealed include:

7

(1) the unredacted version of MediaTek’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to Amend

8

Its Infringement Contentions [CORRECTED]; and

9

(2) the unredacted version of the Declaration of Christopher A. Franklin in Support of

10

MediaTek’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions

11

[CORRECTED]; (“Franklin Decl.”).

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

The Court finds that Freescale has made an adequate showing of good cause to seal in

13

connection with this non-dispositive motion. The Patrick Declaration explains that the unit sales

14

data therein is confidential and arguably trade secret information appropriate for sealing. As a result

15

the motion is GRANTED. Mediatek may redact from the publicly-filed versions of these documents:

16

(1) the portions of its corrected reply brief at page 11:15-18 and 11:25-28; and (2) the portions of the

17

corrected Franklin Declaration at pages 2:25-3:2.

18

However, this order does not permit any party to file the same documents under seal in

19

connection with a future motion. To the extent the documents are offered in connection with a

20

dispositive motion or at trial, any party seeking to seal the documents will be required to make a new

21

motion.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ADDITIONAL ORDERS
In addition, the Court ORDERS that the declarations of Mark Patrick filed in support of this
motion to seal (Dkt. No. 88) and the prior motion to seal (Dkt. No. 83) be filed in the public record
immediately. Both documents were filed under seal in the ECF system. As the Court previously
noted in its Order of April 19, 2013, no sealing was granted as to that attorney declaration and it
should have been filed in the public record in full. There is no order permitting those declarations to
be filed under seal, no motion to seal them, nor any apparent justification for sealing them. Counsel

2

1

is cautioned that future failure to comply with the Local Rules regarding sealing of court documents

2

may be cause for sanctions.

3

This Order terminates Docket No. 87.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: May 10, 2013
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3