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)
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?