Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al
Filing
199
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 194 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TESSERA, INC.,
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
v.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 194)
MOTOROLA, INC.; QUALCOMM, INC.;
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.;
ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and ATI
TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
Defendants.
10
11
No. C 12-692 CW
________________________________/
Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. moves on behalf of itself, Freescale
12
Semiconductor, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., ATI
13
Technologies ULC, Spansion, Inc., Spansion Technology, Inc.,
14
Spansion, LLC, STMicroelectronics, Inc., and STMicroelectronics
15
N.V. to seal to Exhibit A to the Declaration of David H. Dolkas in
16
support of their motion for partial summary judgment and portions
17
of their memorandum of points and authorities that cite and quote
18
from Exhibit A.
Exhibit A contains a license agreement entered
19
into by Tessera, Inc. and third-party Motorola, Inc.
Tessera and
20
Motorola Mobility LLC, previously a segment of Motorola, Inc. and
21
successor-in-interest to the rights of Motorola, Inc. under the
22
license agreement, have submitted declarations in support of the
23
motion to seal.
See Docket Nos. 196 and 197.
24
The parties seek to seal records connected to a dispositive
25
motion.
To establish that the documents are sealable, the party
26
who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a strong
27
presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
28
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
2
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
3
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
4
(citation omitted).
5
stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery
6
documents attached to non-dispositive motions).
7
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
8
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
9
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
11
file each document under seal.
12
Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less
This cannot be
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
Motorola Mobility attests that public disclosure of the
13
license agreement would place it a competitive disadvantage in
14
entering into future license agreements by providing others in the
15
market with “information that they would otherwise not have about
16
Motorola Mobility’s licensing terms and practices that would
17
provide” them with “a strategic negotiation advantage.”
18
Decl. ¶ 8.
19
competitive market” and that public disclosure would give its
20
competitors information about its licensing practices and “insight
21
regarding costs associated with Motorola Mobility’s products” that
22
would grant the competitors a “strategic advantage in terms of
23
competing against Motorola Mobility in the market.”
24
Miller
It further attests that it operates in a “highly
Id. at ¶ 9.
Having reviewed Exhibit A and the memorandum of points and
25
authorities, the Court concludes that Motorola Mobility has
26
established that Exhibit A and the references thereto in the
27
memorandum are sealable.
28
under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 194).
Accordingly, Qualcomm’s motion to file
2
Within three days of the
1
date of this Order, Qualcomm shall electronically file under seal
2
Exhibit A and the unredacted memorandum of points and authorities
3
and shall file the redacted memorandum in the public record.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated:
8/10/2012
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?