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

Filing 337

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ( 273 , 283 , 330 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, APPLE COMPUTER INC., ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., MERU NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., (Docket Nos. 273, 283, 330) Defendants. 10 11 No. C 13-159 CW ________________________________/ 12 Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal. 13 Because they seek to seal documents submitted in conjunction with 14 claim construction and summary judgment, the parties must 15 establish “compelling reasons” outweighing the strong presumption 16 in favor of public disclosure. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 17 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). For ease of 18 reference, the Court refers to these motions by docket number. 19 A. Docket No. 273 20 Linex seeks to seal portions of its Opposition to Motion 21 for Summary Judgment and Claim Construction Reply Brief, as well 22 as the accompanying Supplemental Prucnal Declaration discussing 23 Defendants’ accused wifi devices. As the designating parties, 24 Defendants are responsible for supporting the motion with a 25 declaration establishing that the material is sealable. 26 L.R. 79-5(e). 27 28 Civ. 1 Defendants state only that the information is “confidential, 2 technical information regarding Defendants’ products” and that 3 “public disclosure of this information would be harmful.” 4 No. 277. 5 Defendants’ accused devices at a high level. 6 functionality discussed is covered by the IEEE 802.11(n) standard, 7 which is published in the public domain. 8 narrowly tailored to cover only sealable information; for example, 9 the fact that the standard uses P codes and pilot codes is plainly Docket But the portions sought to be redacted discuss Further, the The motion also is not United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 not sealable. 11 references (which are by definition public) are also not sealable. 12 Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. 13 B. 14 The arguments made distinguishing prior art Docket No. 283 Defendants seek to seal portions of their Reply in Support of 15 Motion for Summary Judgment and the accompanying Exhibit 30, the 16 deposition transcript of Donald L. Schilling. 17 Defendants filed a declaration asserting conclusorily that these 18 documents discuss “confidential, technical information regarding 19 Defendants’ products.” 20 transcript discusses many subjects and the request to seal is not 21 narrowly tailored to redact only confidential information. 22 event, what is sought to be sealed in both the deposition 23 transcript and Reply Brief is broad descriptions of the basic 24 functionality of the IEEE 802.11(n) standard and thus not 25 sealable. 26 in-suit, which Defendants cannot in good faith assert are 27 sealable. 28 motion is therefore DENIED. Docket No. 283-1. In support, The deposition In any Defendants even seek to seal excerpts from the patents- See, e.g., e.g., Defendant’s Reply Brief at 15. 2 This 1 C. 2 Docket No. 330 Defendants seek to seal the Corrected Declaration of Dr. 3 Anthony Acampora. 4 after the matter was already submitted, the Court did not consider 5 it. 6 Because this declaration was filed improperly, The motion is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents 7 referenced in Docket Nos. 273 and 283 in the public record within 8 seven days. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/4/2014 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?