Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.
Filing
53
ORDER GRANTING 40 . 47 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND DENYING PARTIES 49 STIPULATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC., a
Taiwanese corporation,
8
v.
TESSERA, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL AND
DENYING PARTIES’
STIPULATIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 40,
47 and 49)
Plaintiff,
6
7
No. C 11-6121 CW
Defendant.
________________________________/
11
12
Plaintiff Powertech Technology, Inc. has filed a motion to
13
seeking to file under seal its unredacted opposition to Defendant
14
Tessera, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and to strike, as well as the
15
unredacted declaration of C.C. Liao, which Plaintiff has submitted
16
in support of its opposition.
17
Inc. has also filed a motion seeking to file under seal its
18
unredacted reply in further support of its motion, as well as
19
Exhibit 19 to the supplemental declaration of Nathan Lowenstein,
20
which Defendant submitted in support of its reply.
21
The Court notes that the parties have filed redacted versions of
22
the opposition, the Liao Declaration and the reply in the public
23
record.
24
filed two stipulations agreeing to the sealing of these documents.
25
Docket Nos. 40-2 and 49.
26
Docket No. 40.
See Docket Nos. 41, 41-1 and 50.
Defendant Tessera,
Docket No. 47.
The parties have also
The parties represent that the portions of the opposition,
27
reply and the Liao Declaration discuss and quote from exhibits
28
that this Court has previously granted permission to file under
1
seal in this case, including the license agreement between the
2
parties and communications between the parties regarding this
3
agreement.
4
represents that Exhibit 19 contains confidential business
5
communications between the parties discussing their licensing
6
relationship and is similar in type and content to the other
7
documents previously filed under seal.
8
See Docket Nos. 26 and 29.
Defendant further
The parties’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.
To establish that the documents are sealable, they “must overcome
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
a strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
11
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
12
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
13
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
14
(citation omitted).
15
that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating
16
in general terms that the material is considered to be
17
confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration
18
demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document
19
under seal.
20
This cannot be established simply by showing
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
Documents cannot be sealed based upon a stipulation.
See id.
21
Thus, the parties’ stipulations are DECLINED (Docket Nos. 40-2 and
22
49).
23
The parties, however, have provided reasons supporting the
24
sealing of the documents.
25
leave to file documents under seal are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 40 and
26
47).
27
electronically file under seal its unredacted opposition and the
28
unredacted Liao Declaration, and Defendant shall electronically
Accordingly, the parties’ motions for
Within three days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall
2
1
file under seal its unredacted reply and Exhibit 19 to the
2
supplemental declaration of Nathan Lowenstein, in accordance with
3
General Order 62.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: 1/30/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?