Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 29


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, 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

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?