MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 177

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 135 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 137 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 142 Administr ative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 143 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 161 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 162 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

MEDIATEK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

Case No. 11-5341 YGR (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED WITH
JOINT LETTER BRIEFS (Dkt. Nos.
135, 137, 142, 143, 161 & 162)

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court is in the midst of the arduous process of reviewing the ten Joint Letter
Briefs regarding discovery sought by Plaintiff MediaTek, Inc., (“MediaTek”). Several
problems with the parties’ submissions have come to the Court’s attention.
First, for at least some of those disputes for which deposition transcripts were
submitted, the portions of the transcripts provided to the Court in hard copy are incomplete
and do not match those portions cited by the parties in the joint letter briefs. The Court is
unable to determine if the correct transcript portions were nonetheless electronically filed
because the filings do not comply with this Court’s Standing Order regarding administrative
motions to seal. In particular, the Order provides that when a party files a motion to seal, it
shall electronically file under seal the document which it seeks to have sealed as well as
provide the Court with a chambers copy of the document. Here, the parties seek to file under

1

seal the deposition transcripts referenced in the letter briefs, but the parties failed to

2

electronically file under seal any of the transcripts as required by the Court’s Standing Order.

3

Second, MediaTek’s Administrative Motions to Seal these deposition transcripts fail to

4

comply with Local Rule 79-5. (Dkt. Nos. 135-1, 137-1, 142-1, 143-1, 161-1, 162-1). Local

5

Rule 79-5 states that “the request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

6

material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or (c).” The request to file all referenced

7

deposition testimony under seal is not narrowly tailored. Local Rule 79-5 also provides that

8

the party which designated material as confidential must “file with the Court and serve a

9

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve

Northern District of California

a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of

11
United States District Court

10

confidentiality.” See L.R. 79-5(d); see also 79-5(c) (1). Here, the parties submitted joint

12

stipulations in support of MediaTek’s administrative motions to seal which state that the

13

materials to be filed under seal were designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes

14

Only” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 100) by Defendant Freescale

15

Semiconductor, Inc., (“Freescale”) and Freescale “wishes to maintain the confidentiality of

16

certain information disclosed in the Joint Letter Brief.” (Dkt. Nos. 135-1, 137-1, 142-1, 143-

17

1, 161-1, 162-1). Local Rule 79-5(a), however, expressly states that “a stipulation . . . will

18

not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Although Freescale also submitted

19

declarations in support of the sealing, the declarations do not establish why the entirety of the

20

deposition testimony submitted should be filed under seal rather than select portions thereof.

21

(Dkt. Nos. 153, 155, 157, 158, 167, and 168.) Moreover, Freescale’s declarations were

22

unnecessarily filed under seal. See http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/underseal.

23
24
25

Accordingly, the Court rules on MediaTek’s Administrative Motions to Seal (Dkt.
Nos. 135, 137, 142, 143, 161, 162) as follows:
1. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal exhibits attached to its Joint Discovery

26

Letter Brief Re: RFP No. 53 (Dkt. No. 135) is GRANTED as to Exhibits E and H, and

27

DENIED without prejudice as to Exhibit F.

28

2

1

2. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal exhibits attached to its Joint Discovery

2

Letter Brief Re: Rule 30(b)(6) Designee for Newly Accused Products (Dkt. No. 137)

3

is GRANTED as to Exhibit K and DENIED without prejudice as to Exhibit C.

4

3. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibit C attached to its Joint Discovery

5

Letter Brief Re: Chastain Deposition (Dkt. No. 142) is DENIED without prejudice.

6

4. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal exhibits attached to its Joint Discovery

7

Letter Brief Re: Rule 30(b)(6) Designee for Accused Products MPC8360E and

8

MPC8358E (Dkt. No. 143) is DENIED without prejudice.

Letter Brief Re: Rule 30(b)(6) Limit (Dkt. No. 161) is DENIED without prejudice.

11
Northern District of California

5. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal exhibits attached to its Joint Discovery

10

United States District Court

9

6. MediaTek’s Administrative Motion to Seal exhibits attached to its Joint Discovery

12

Letter Brief Re: MediaTek’s Third Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (Dkt. No. 162) is

13

GRANTED as to Exhibit B and DENIED without prejudice as to Exhibits J, K, L, N,

14

Q and R.

15

For those motions which were granted in part, MediaTek shall electronically file the

16

under seal documents within three days. For those motions which were denied in whole or in

17

part, MediaTek may file renewed motions to seal which comply with Local Rule 79-5, this

18

Court’s Standing Order, and this Order. To the extent that either party wishes to have the

19

Court consider the deposition pages cited in the joint letter briefs, the party shall file a

20

renewed motion to seal attaching the proper portions of the deposition transcripts by noon

21

Friday, August 23, 2013 – no chambers copies are required provided the party electronically

22

file the documents under seal.

23

Finally, because MediaTek filed the joint letter briefs as exhibits to the administrative

24

motions to seal referenced above, rather than as separate motions with independent docket

25

entries, MediaTek shall separately re-electronically file each joint letter brief referenced

26

herein as a separate docket entry (under the Civil Events category of “Motions and Related

27

Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.”)

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

1

Dated: August 21, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

4