MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 367

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL FILINGS RELATED TO FREESCALES MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCES (Dkt. Nos. 308, 334 & 352). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/18/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

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

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

16

Case No. 11-5341 YGR (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL FILINGS
RELATED TO FREESCALE’S
MOTION FOR ADVERSE
INFERENCES (Dkt. Nos. 308, 334 &
352)

Defendant.

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

Now pending before the Court are three Administrative Motions to Seal filings related
to the motion of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) for adverse inferences wherein
the parties seek to file under seal portions of the briefs and exhibits relating to the motion.
(Dkt. Nos. 308, 344 & 352.) The motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
follows.
Freescale’s Motion for Adverse Inferences stems from Plaintiff MediaTek, Inc.’s
(“MediaTek”) purported concealment of technical documents relating to U.S. Patent No.
6,088,753 (“the ’753 patent”). The dispute centers on a report prepared by a third-party
consultant for MediaTek in connection with MediaTek’s acquisition of the ‘753 patent. The
Court previously overruled MediaTek’s claim of attorney client privilege with respect to the

1

document and ordered it produced to Freescale. (Dkt. No. 280.) Both parties seek to file

2

references to the contents of the report and related documents and depositions under seal.

3

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5 “[a]sealing order may issue only upon a request that

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Any request for sealing

6

under this rule must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. The

7

parties seek to file under seal (1) information contained in and related to the report prepared

8

by the third-party consultant, (2) technical information that relates to Freescale’s products,

9

and (3) information regarding MediaTek’s patent acquisition and licensing practices. (Dkt.

10

Nos. 308-2, 310, 334-3, 357.) The Court finds that the parties have established good cause

11
Northern District of California

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret

5

United States District Court

4

for sealing categories two and three, but have failed to demonstrate good cause with respect to

12

their request for sealing of all information regarding the report prepared by the third-party

13

consultant.

14

With respect to category one, although the parties initially sought to file any reference

15

to the company who prepared the report under seal, the publicly filed version of Freescale’s

16

reply brief discloses the identity of the company who prepared the report. (Dkt. No. 352-4.)

17

Even if this were not the case, the Court fails to see how the name of the company is

18

confidential and subject to sealing. Likewise, although MediaTek initially sought to file its

19

privilege logs herein under seal, Freescale’s publicly filed reply brief discloses the contents of

20

the privilege logs, and even were this not the case, MediaTek could not demonstrate good

21

cause for sealing a privilege log. A privilege log should not contain confidential information

22

as a privilege log by its very purpose seeks to shield confidential information from disclosure

23

and only contains that information which is necessary to show that the underlying documents

24

are privileged. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to seal with respect to any

25

references to the “Chipworks report” and any reference or exhibit relating to MediaTek’s

26

privilege logs. At the hearing on December 19, 2013 the parties shall be prepared to

27

address why all aspects of the Chipworks report are sealable, and in particular, the

28

2

1

portions which reference any search Chipworks may have made for prior art in

2

connection with its report. This includes portions of or the entirety of the following:

3

• Freescale’s Motion for Adverse Inferences, Docket No. 308-6.

4

• Declaration of Frank Vahid, Docket No. 308-8.

5

• Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jacob Ewerdt, Docket No. 308-11.

6

• Exhibit 10 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-20.

7

• MediaTek’s Opposition to Freescale’s Motion for Adverse Inferences, Docket No.

8
9

334-6.
• Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Brett Hammon, Docket No. 334-16.

Northern District of California

• Declaration of Charles Narad, Docket No. 334-8.

11
United States District Court

10

• Freescale’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Adverse Inferences, Docket No. 352-5.

12
13

The administrative motions to seal are DENIED as to the following:

14

• Declaration of Jacob Ewerdt, Docket No. 308-10.

15

• Exhibit 1 to the Hammon Declaration, Docket No. 334-12

16

• Exhibit 2 to the Hammon Declaration, Docket No. 334-14

17

• Exhibits 12 & 13 to the Hammon Declaration, Docket Nos. 334- 27 & 334-29: both of

18

these exhibits were designated as confidential by Freescale, but Freescale does not

19

appear to have submitted a declaration in support of sealing as required by Local Rule

20

79-5(e) and the exhibits are publicly available.

21
22

The administrative motions to seal are otherwise GRANTED as follows:

23

• Exhibit 9 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-19.

24

• Exhibit 11 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-21.

25

• Exhibit 12 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-23.

26

• Exhibit 17 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-29.

27

• Exhibit 18 to the Ewerdt Declaration, Docket No. 308-30.

28

• Exhibit 7 to the Hammon Declaration, Docket No. 334-21.

3

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: December 18, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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