Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 248

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ADDRESSING ( 197 , 201 , 208 MOTIONS TO SEAL (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD, et al.,

8

ORDER ADDRESSING
MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 197,
201, and 208)

Defendants,

9

________________________________/

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 13-00159 CW

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS,
COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY
CLAIMS
________________________________/

11
12
13
14

The Court addresses the pending motions to seal in the above
captioned cases as follows:

15
16
17

I.

Docket Nos. 197 and 208:
Plaintiff Linex Technologies, Inc. has moved to file under

18

seal Exhibits 11-15, 17-21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-41, 43-47, 49-52, 54-

19

57, and 59-67 attached to the Declaration of Robert McCauley in

20

support of its motion for leave to amend infringement contentions.

21

Docket No. 197.

22

Linex states that these exhibits contain

information designated by Defendants as confidential business

23
24
25

information pursuant to a protective order.

Linex also moved to

seal Exhibit 70 attached to the Declaration of Robert M. McCauley

26

in support of its reply in support of its motion to amend

27

infringement contentions and opposition to Defendants’ motion to

28

strike its motion to amend infringement contentions.

Docket No.

1

208.

2

designated by Defendants as confidential business information

3

pursuant to a protective order.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Linex again states that Exhibit 70 contains information

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

This cannot be

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
protective order, but rather must be supported by a sworn

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file each

11

document under seal.

12

to file a document that has been designated as confidential by

13

another party or to refer to such information in a memorandum or

14

other filing, it is required to file and serve an administrative

15

See Local Rule 79-5(a).

motion seeking a sealing order.

If a party wishes

See Local Rule 79-5(d).

The

16
17
18
19

designating party then must file a declaration establishing that
the document is sealable within four days thereafter.

See Local

Rule 79-5(e).
Defendants have not filed a declaration in support of the

20
21

motion to seal as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

22

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Linex’s motions to seal (Docket Nos.

23
24

197, 208).

Within four days of the date of this order, Linex

shall file these exhibits to the declaration in the public record.

25
26

II.

Docket No. 201

27

Apple moves on behalf of all Defendants and Intervenors to

28

file under seal Exhibits 1 and 6 attached to the Declaration of
2

1

Mark Scarsi.

2

support of its motion to seal.

3

declaration in support of the motion to seal, Apple represents

4

that Exhibits 1 and 6 contain proprietary information of

5

Defendants and third-party suppliers, and such material has been

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Docket No. 201.

Apple submitted a declaration in
Docket No. 201.

designated as confidential business information.
Docket No. 201.

In its

Scarsi Dec.,

Because these exhibits contain proprietary

information regarding Defendants’ technology, Apple’s motion to
seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 201).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 11/21/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3