Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 24 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND DENYING PARTIES 25 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC., a
Taiwanese corporation,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
AND DENYING
PARTIES’
STIPULATION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 24
and 25)

Plaintiff,

6

No. C 11-6121 CW

v.
TESSERA, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
________________________________/

Defendant Tessera, Inc. has filed a motion seeking to file

12

under seal its unredacted memorandum of law in support of its

13

motion to dismiss and to strike, as well as Exhibits 2, 5-7, 9, 12

14

and 15 to the declaration of Nathan Lowenstein, which Defendant

15

submitted in support of its motion to dismiss and to strike.

16

Docket No. 24.

17

redacted version of its memorandum in the public record.

18

Docket No. 20.

19

have also filed a stipulation to the sealing of these documents.

20

Docket No. 25.

21

The Court notes that Defendant has filed a
See

Defendant and Plaintiff Powertech Technology, Inc.

Defendant represents that the Court has previously granted

22

permission to file Exhibits 2, 5-7 and 9 in the related case,

23

Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., Case No. 10-945.

24

Defendant states that the exhibits contain the license agreement

25

between the parties, as well as communications between the parties

26

regarding this agreement.

27

that the exhibits contain sensitive, confidential and proprietary

28

business information, including information concerning the scope

Mot. at 2.

Defendant further states

1

of the license and the relevant royalty rate(s).

2

also states that the redacted portions of the memorandum quote and

3

discuss the exhibits that it seeks to seal.

4

Id.

Defendant

Defendant’s filings are connected to a dispositive motion.

5

To establish that the documents are sealable, Defendant “must

6

overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

7

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

8

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

9

favoring disclosure.’”

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

11

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

12

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

13

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

14

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

15

file each document under seal.

This cannot be

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

16

Documents cannot be sealed based upon a stipulation.

17

Thus, the parties’ stipulation is DELCLINED. (Docket No. 25).

18

See id.

Defendant, however, has provided reasons supporting the

19

sealing of the documents.

20

leave to file documents under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 24).

21

Within three days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall

22

electronically file under seal its unredacted memorandum and

23

Exhibits 2, 5-7, 9, 12 and 15 to the declaration of Nathan

24

Lowenstein, in accordance with General Order 62.

25

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 1/9/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
2