Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 170

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING QUALCOMM, INCS 162 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND GRANTING STIPULATED 164 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENTS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 12-692 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI
TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,
Defendants.
________________________________/

11

ORDER DENYING
QUALCOMM, INC’S
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (Docket
No. 162) AND
GRANTING
STIPULATED
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED
DOCUMENTS (Docket
No. 164)

Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. seeks leave to file under seal its
12
motion to strike Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.’s amended disclosure of
13
asserted claims and infringement contentions and Exhibit A2 to the
14
declaration of David L. Larson in support of its motion to strike.
15
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
16
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
17
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

Pintos v. Pac.

18
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

This cannot

19
be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
20
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
21
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
22
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
23
file each document under seal.

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If

24
a document has been designated as confidential by another party,
25
that party must file a declaration establishing that the document
26
is sealable.
27
28

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

1

Qualcomm does not establish good cause to seal these

2

documents.

3

terms that these documents contain “proprietary,” “highly

4

sensitive” and “confidential information belonging to the

5

defendants in this action,” that they have been designated as

6

‘Highly Confidential -- Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” and that “it is

7

critical that these materials remain confidential and not be

8

placed in the public file.”

9

does not establish with particularity the need to file these

It has submitted a declaration stating only in general

Larson Decl. ¶ 3.

However, Qualcomm

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

documents under seal.

11

Defendants may have designated the material as confidential, no

12

other parties have filed declarations establishing that the

13

documents are sealable.

14

Further, while it appears that other

Accordingly, Qualcomm’s motion to seal is DENIED (Docket No.

15

162).

16

withdraw its documents or file them in the public record, pursuant

17

to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) and General Order 62(4).

18

Within four days of the date of this Order, Qualcomm shall

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. and Defendants Qualcomm, Inc.,

19

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC also

20

jointly request that the Court remove Exhibits A1 and A2 to the

21

Declaration of An P. Doan offered in support of Freescale’s

22

separate motion to strike Tessera’s disclosure.

23

156-1, 156-2.

24

the Doan declaration contain confidential material and were filed

25

inadvertently in the public docket.

26

requested to file these documents under seal.

27
28

See Docket Nos.

The parties represent that Exhibits A1 and A2 to

The parties have not

The Court GRANTS the parties’ motion to remove Exhibits A1
and A2 to the Doan declaration (Docket No. 164), strikes these
2

1

documents and directs the Clerk of the Court to remove Docket Nos.

2

156-1 and 156-2 from the public docket.

3

Because Exhibits A1 and A2 to the Doan declaration are no

4

longer part of the record of this case, Freescale must re-file

5

them if it continues to offer them in support of its motion to

6

strike.

7

shall file a motion to file these exhibits under seal.

8

Freescale fails to do so, the Court directs the Special Master not

9

to consider these exhibits in resolving Freescale’s motion to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Within three days of the date of this Order, Freescale
If

strike.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: 6/20/2012

14

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

15
16
CC:

Honorable Charles A. Legge, Special Master

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3