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)
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?