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)

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, 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?