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

Filing 212

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING ( 204 , 207 )MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2012)

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
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket No. 204
and 207)

MOTOROLA, INC.; QUALCOMM, INC.;
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.;
ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and ATI
TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
Defendants.

10
11

No. C 12-692 CW

________________________________/
Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. moves to seal its unredacted

12
opposition, and Defendant Qualcomm, Inc. moves on behalf of
13
itself, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices,
14
Inc., ATI Technologies ULC, Spansion, Inc., Spansion Technology,
15
Inc., Spansion, LLC, STMicroelectronics, Inc., and
16
STMicroelectronics N.V., to seal their unredacted reply brief.
17
The parties represent that they seek to seal the portions of their
18
briefs that refer to and quote the license agreement entered into
19
by Tessera, Inc. and third-party Motorola, Inc.

The Court

20
previously granted the parties’ request to file the license
21
agreement under seal, as well as the portions of Defendants’
22
opening brief for summary judgment that referred to and quoted the
23
license agreement.

Docket No. 199.

The Court notes that the

24
parties have already filed redacted versions of their briefs in
25
the public record.

See Docket Nos. 205 and 208.

26
The parties seek to seal records connected to a dispositive
27
motion.
28

To establish that the documents are sealable, the party

1

who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a strong

2

presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons

3

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general

4

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”

5

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)

6

(citation omitted).

7

stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery

8

documents attached to non-dispositive motions).

9

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less

This cannot be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

11

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

12

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

13

file each document under seal.

14

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Having reviewed the briefs and the parties’ declarations in

15

support of their motions to seal, the Court concludes that they

16

have established that the references to the license agrement in

17

the memoranda are sealable.

18

under seal are GRANTED (Docket No. 204 and 207).

19

days of the date of this Order, the parties shall electronically

20

file under seal their unredacted briefs.

21

Accordingly, their motions to file
Within three

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 9/5/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2