Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 157

ORDER RE: 137 , 145 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 08/04/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2010)

Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 08/05/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant. ____________________________________/ Plaintiff,

No. C 09-01531 RS ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In conjunction with Apple's motion to dismiss Elan's counterclaim for inequitable conduct, the parties each filed sealing motions regarding certain materials they submitted. Elan's motion (Dkt. No. 137) sought to seal Exhibits B, D, E, M, R, S, T, and U, to the Declaration of Sean P. DeBruine (Dkt. No. 136) submitted in support of Elan's opposition, all of which are materials that had been designated by Apple as "confidential," or "highly confidential" under the protective order governing this action. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Apple has submitted a declaration that adequately establishes grounds for filing Exhibits B, D, E, T, and U under seal. Apple has withdrawn the confidentiality designations for Exhibits M, R, and S. Accordingly, the sealing motion is GRANTED as to exhibits B, D, E, T, and U and DENIED as to Exhibits M, R, and S. Elan also filed its opposition brief in a redacted version, omitting from the public record certain quotations from deposition testimony that apparently had been designated by Apple as 1

NO. C 0901531 RS ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

confidential. Neither Elan's sealing motion, nor Apple's declaration in response addressed those redactions. The Court has reviewed the redactions. Even assuming the depositions cited otherwise contained information subject to protection, the particular excerpts quoted in Elan's brief do not warrant sealing. Accordingly, Elan shall re-file its opposition brief in unredacted form. Apple's sealing motion (Docket No. 145) seeks sealing of Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Sonal N. Mehta lodged in support of Apple's reply brief, as well as paragraph 4 of that declaration. Apple's motion and Elan's responsive declaration adequately establish grounds for sealing those materials. Accordingly, Apple's sealing motion is GRANTED. Apple shall efile the Mehta declaration with paragraph 4 and Exhibits A and B redacted.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 08/05/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

NO. C 0901531 RS ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS