Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 125

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART AND DEFERRING IN PART 115 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND GRANTING 118 MOTION TO WITHDRAW DECLARATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC., a Taiwanese corporation, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 v. TESSERA, INC., a Delaware corporation, 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Defendant. No. C 11-6121 CW ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART AND DEFERRING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 115) AND GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW DECLARATION (Docket Nos. 118) ________________________________/ Plaintiff Powertech Technology, Inc. (PTI) moves to file 12 under seal the declaration of G. Hopkins Guy III1 in support of 13 its motion for summary judgment on its claims against Defendant 14 Tessera, Inc., Exhibits 2-10, 12-21, 23-25 and 27-30 attached to 15 the Guy declaration and the portions of its motion that refer to 16 these documents. 17 declaration of Jacob M. Heath that it submitted in support of its 18 motion to seal and to lodge a new declaration from Mr. Heath in 19 its place, which the Court GRANTS (Docket No. 118). PTI also moves to withdraw the original The Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 At the beginning of its motion to seal, PTI states that it seeks to file under seal the declaration of Jacob M. Heath in support of its motion for summary judgment. Mot. at 1. However, in the memorandum of points and authorities and proposed order, PTI refers instead to the declaration of G. Hopkins Guy III. PTI has submitted a courtesy copy of a declaration from Mr. Guy in support of its motion for summary judgment, including the exhibits to which it refers in the instant motion, but has not submitted a courtesy copy or filed such a declaration from Mr. Heath, although it has submitted a declaration from Mr. Heath in support of the motion to seal. Thus, the Court presumes that PTI seeks to file under seal the declaration of Mr. Guy. 1 notes that Tessera has not submitted a declaration in support of 2 PTI’s motion to file under seal. 3 PTI seek to seal court records connected to a dispositive 4 motion. 5 who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a strong 6 presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons 7 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general 8 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” 9 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) To establish that the documents are sealable, the party United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 (citation omitted). 11 stringent “good cause” standard is required to seal discovery 12 documents related to non-dispositive motions). 13 cannot be established simply by showing that the document is 14 subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that 15 the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be 16 supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity 17 the need to file each document under seal. 18 5(a). 19 Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less Compelling reasons Civil Local Rule 79- Further, if a party wishes to file a document that has been 20 designated confidential by another party, the submitting party 21 must file and serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order. 22 Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). 23 adequate notice to the designating party that the submitting party 24 is seeking to file material that the designating party believes is 25 confidential, because within seven days after the administrative 26 motion is filed, the designating party must file a declaration 27 establishing that the information is sealable. 28 designating party does not file its responsive declaration, the The submitting party must provide 2 Id. If the 1 document or proposed filing will be made part of the public 2 record. Id. 3 PTI states that it seeks to file under seal Exhibit 12 to the 4 Guy declaration, which contains the Tessera Compliant Chip License 5 Agreement (TCC License), because it contains “proprietary and 6 confidential information, including provisions regarding the 7 calculation, payment, and amount of royalties PTI pays to Tessera 8 on licensed products.” 9 Exhibits 25 and 27-30 contain “confidential communications between Heath Decl. ¶ 3. It also represents that United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Tessera and PTI” with “confidential information regarding the 11 Parties’ licensing relationship, including the amount of royalties 12 PTI pays to Tessera.” 13 9 contains excerpts from the May 2012 depositions of Brian 14 Marcucci in his personal capacity and as the Rule 30(b)(6) 15 designee for Tessera, in which he discussed the business and 16 licensing relationship between the parties. 17 states that disclosure of Exhibits 9, 12, 25 and 27-30 would harm 18 PTI by giving its competitors this proprietary information. Id. at 19 ¶¶ 5, 7. 20 file Exhibits 12 and 25 under seal. 21 96. 22 9, 12, 25 and 27-30 are sealable. 23 Id. at ¶ 4. It further states that Exhibit Id. at ¶ 7. PTI The Court has previously granted the parties leave to See, e.g., Docket Nos. 26, Thus, the Court finds that PTI has established that Exhibits PTI states that Exhibit 23 to the Guy declaration is a copy 24 of the International Court of Arbitration decision in Amkor Tech., 25 Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Case No. 16531/VRO. 26 in a related case pending before this Court, Tessera filed a 27 declaration attesting that this document should be filed under 28 seal, because it discloses the terms of the confidential licensing 3 The Court notes that 1 agreement between Tessera and non-party Amkor Electronics, Inc., 2 public disclosure of which “would jeopardize Tessera’s ability to 3 continue to license its technology successfully,” which is 4 “critical to its business.” 5 Micro Devices, Inc., Case No. 05-4063, MacDonald Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that this document is sealable. Docket No. 1025, Tessera v. Advanced 7 PTI asserts that Exhibits 2-8, 10, 12-21 and 24 should be 8 filed under seal, because they contain excerpts from documents and 9 testimony submitted in or related to the 630 ITC investigation and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 subject to the protective order issued in that action. 11 PTI may not establish that these documents are sealable simply by 12 showing that they are subject to a protective order issued in this 13 case or in any other, see Local Rule 79-5(c), and must instead 14 provide compelling reasons to file them under seal. 15 which submitted many of the relevant documents to the ITC, has not 16 filed a declaration in support of their sealing. 17 notes that Tessera has previously filed in the public docket of 18 this case excerpts from similar documents that PTI seeks to seal 19 at this time. 20 contains the public version of the February 24, 2010 opinion 21 issued by the International Trade Commission in the 630 ITC 22 investigation, which is freely available in public databases. 23 2010 ITC LEXIS 317. 24 these documents are sealable. 25 See, e.g., Docket No. 21-8. However, Tessera, The Court also Further, Exhibit 4 See Accordingly, PTI has not established that PTI, however, represents that some of these exhibits include 26 confidential business and financial information related to the 27 parties who were the respondents to the 630 ITC investigation, and 28 who are not parties to the instant action. 4 Based on a review of 1 the document, it appears that they may contain such information of 2 non-parties, including Elpida. 3 any non-parties who may consider the information confidential were 4 provided with notice of its motion to seal. 5 PTI has not provided proof that For the reasons set forth above, PTI’s motion to file under 6 seal is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part and DEFERRED in part 7 (Docket No. 115). 8 9, 12, 23, 25 and 27-30 under seal, and DENIES PTI’s motion to 9 file Exhibit 4 under seal. The Court GRANTS PTI’s request to file Exhibits Within three days of the date of this United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Order, PTI shall electronically file Exhibits 9, 12, 23, 25 and 11 27-30 under seal and shall file Exhibit 4 in the public docket. 12 The Court DEFERS ruling on its request to file Exhibits 2-3, 13 5-8, 10, 12-21 and 24 under seal. 14 of this Order, PTI shall file proof that it has served copies of 15 its motion to seal, this Order and Local Rule 79-5 upon any non- 16 party whose confidential information may be contained in Exhibits 17 2-3, 5-8, 10, 12-21 and 24. 18 non-party who believes that this material should be filed under 19 seal must file a declaration in support of PTI’s motion to seal, 20 establishing that the material is sealable. 21 supporting declaration in compliance with this Order will result 22 in the exhibits being made part of the public record. 23 Within three days of the date Within seven days of service, any Failure to file a IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: 8/10/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 27 28 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?