Acer, Inc. et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 491

ORDER SETTING HEARING RE: SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on August 7, 2013. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15
16

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
ALLIACENSE LTD.,

17

Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 PSG

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:08-cv-00882 PSG
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendants.
ORDER SETTING HEARING RE: SEALING MOTIONS

26
27
28
Case No.: 08-0877
ORDER

There lies amid the forest of important summary judgment motions pending in these cases a

1
2

thick and expanding underbrush of sealing motions. 1 After consuming the better part of yesterday

3

afternoon trying to clear this underbrush out, the court is left with the impression that the parties

4

may misunderstand a variety of basic sealing requirements set forth by our Local Rules and case

5

law. Basics such as narrowly tailored requests. Or requests being submitted by the party actually

6

claiming confidentiality. Properly designating documents as “confidential” in the first instance so

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

as to avoid unnecessary sealing requests. Or explaining how the request fits within Kamakana's
“compelling reason” standard for documents associated with dispositive motions. And so on and
so forth.

11

The court wishes to clear up this misunderstanding, without resort to yet another lengthy

12

written lament on the subject of sealing requests in patent cases. 2 To that end, when the parties

13

appear on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m, 3 they should be prepared to justify each of the

14
sealing requests pending before the court.
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: August 7, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
1

24

See e.g., Case No. 5:08-cv-00977-PSG: Docket Nos. 456, 465, 474, and 487; Case No. 5:08-cv00882-PSG: Docket Nos. 460, 465, 468, and 478.

25

2

27

See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846 LHK PSG , 2013
WL 412864 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013); Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks,
Inc., Case No. C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL 211115 C 10-3428 PSG (N.D. Cal. Jan 17, 2013);
Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. v. Synopsys Inc., Case No. C 11-CV-05973 PSG, 2013 WL 1366046
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013).

28

3

26

See Docket No. 444.

Case No.: 08-0877
ORDER