Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART 94 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

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 IN
PART MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 94)

Plaintiff,

6

No. C 11-6121 CW

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

On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff Powertech Technology, Inc. filed a

12

motion seeking permission to file under seal its motion for leave

13

to file a first amended complaint and Exhibit One thereto,

14

including its proposed first amended complaint (1AC) and

15

Appendices A and G through O attached to the 1AC.

16

Docket No. 94.

Plaintiff seeks to seal court records that are closely

17

related to the merits of its complaint.

18

documents are sealable, the party who has designated it as

19

confidential “must overcome a strong presumption of access by

20

showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

21

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

22

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

23

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

24

id. at 678 (explaining that a less stringent “good cause” standard

25

is applied to sealed discovery documents attached to

26

non-dispositive motions).

27

showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by

28

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be

To establish that the

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
Cf.

This cannot be established simply by

1

confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration

2

demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document

3

under seal.

4

designated as confidential by another party, that party must file

5

a declaration establishing that the document is sealable.

6

Local Rule 79-5(d).

7

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If a document has been

Civil

In its motion to seal, Plaintiff states that it seeks to file

8

its motion for leave to amend the complaint under seal, because

9

the motion “discusses statements” from the depositions of Brian

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Marcucci in his individual capacity and in his capacity as

11

Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, which Defendant has designated

12

as confidential.

13

notes that, while Plaintiff apparently seeks to file its entire

14

motion for leave to amend under seal, the motion discusses the

15

content of Mr. Marcucci’s testimony only on pages 3:25 through

16

4:25 and 8:22 through 9:10.

17

Marcucci’s testimony as sealable, it must file a declaration

18

demonstrating with particularity the need to file under seal these

19

portions of Plaintiff’s motion within seven days of the date on

20

which Plaintiff filed its motion to seal, or by May 31, 2012.

21

Defendant’s failure to do so will result in the denial of

22

Plaintiff’s motion to seal as to this document.

23

Mot. to Seal at 2; Heath Decl. ¶ 2.

The Court

Because Defendant has designated Mr.

Plaintiff states that it seeks to file under seal Appendix A

24

to its proposed 1AC, which contains the Tessera Complaint Chip

25

License Agreement (TCC License), because it contains “proprietary

26

and confidential information, including provisions regarding the

27

calculation, payment, and amount of royalties PTI pays to Tessera

28

on licensed products,” and that its disclosure would harm
2

1

Plaintiff by giving its competitors this proprietary information.

2

Heath Decl. ¶ 14.

3

leave to file the TCC License under seal.

4

that time, the Court also granted permission to file under seal

5

Appendix G, which contains a letter from Plaintiff to Defendant

6

that quotes extensively from the TCC license.

7

Plaintiff has established that Appendices A and G are sealable.

8
9

The Court has previously granted the parties
See Docket No. 26.

Id.

At

Accordingly,

Plaintiff also seeks to file under seal Appendices H through
O, which contain other correspondence between the parties that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

include confidential and proprietary information, including

11

discussions related to the amount, calculation and payment of

12

royalties to Tessera and the parties’ business relationship.

13

Court notes that it has previously granted the parties permission

14

to file under seal Appendices J and O, as well as part of Appendix

15

H.

16

H through O, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that

17

these Appendices are sealable.

18

See Docket No. 29.

The

Having reviewed the contents of Appendices

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to file its proposed 1AC under seal.

19

Plaintiff represents that the proposed 1AC “references, discusses

20

and quotes the Parties’ TCC License and from several

21

correspondences between the parties,” which are the documents that

22

this Court found cause to seal above.

23

in its motion to seal, Plaintiff appears to request that the

24

proposed 1AC be sealed in its entirety, Plaintiff has indicated in

25

the copy provided to the Court the portions of it that refer to

26

the confidential material and that can be redacted.

27

Court finds that Plaintiff has established compelling reasons to

28
3

Mot. to Seal at 3.

While

Thus, the

1

seal the unredacted proposed 1AC and to file the redacted version

2

in the public record.

3

As set forth above, Plaintiff has provided sufficient reasons

4

supporting the sealing of the unredacted proposed 1AC and of the

5

entirety of Appendices A and G through O.

6

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file documents under seal is

7

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 94).

8

this Order, Plaintiff shall electronically file under seal its

9

unredacted proposed 1AC and Appendices A and G through O, and

Accordingly,

Within three days of the date of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

shall file in the public record the redacted proposed 1AC.

11

Further, as previously stated, by May 31, 2012, Defendant must

12

file a declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

13

seal the portions of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend that

14

refer to Mr. Marcucci’s deposition testimony.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 5/31/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4