Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 223

ORDER re 210 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and Denying 216 Joint Request to Take Fujitsu's Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions Off Calendar. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/30/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2012)

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
13
14
15
16
17

FUJITSU LIMITED,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BELKIN, )
INC.; D-LINK CORPORATION; D-LINK
)
SYSTEMS, INC.; NETGEAR, INC.; ZYXEL )
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; and )
ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL; AND DENYING
JOINT REQUEST TO TAKE FUJITSU’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE
SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS OFF CALENDAR
(re: dkt #: 210, 216)

18
19

On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff Fujitsu Limited (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of Motion for

20

Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions (“Motion”) and an Administrative Motion

21

for Administrative Relief to File Portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Philip A. Irwin

22

Under Seal (“Sealing Motion”). See ECF Nos. 209, 210. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff and

23

Defendants filed a joint stipulation asking the Court to take Plaintiff’s Motion off calendar because

24

“the parties . . . are presently working on several stipulations that will resolve Fujitsu’s motion, as

25

well as a proposed amendment of Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and related issues, by

26

agreement.” ECF No. 216 at 2.

27
28

Notwithstanding the Parties’ assertion that they “intend to finalize the stipulations and file
them with the Court by Friday, January 20, 2012,” id., as of January 30, 2012, they have filed no
1
Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: SEALING; AND DENYING JOINT REQUEST TO TAKE MOTION OFF CALENDAR

1

such stipulations. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ joint request to

2

take Plaintiff’s Motion off calendar. The Parties may renew this request upon filing their above-

3

referenced stipulations. Alternatively, Plaintiff is certainly welcome to withdraw its Motion.

4

Plaintiff’s Sealing Motion requests sealing of certain documents that were designated

5

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Defendants under the Stipulated Protective Order

6

(ECF No. 122) in this matter. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), when a party moves to seal

7

documents designated as sealable by another party, the designating party must file a supporting

8

declaration within 7 days, or the sealing motion will be denied. No supporting declaration was

9

filed by any Defendant in response to the January 4, 2012 Sealing Motion.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

As noted in the Protective Order, simply designating information as confidential does not

11

entitle the parties to file it under seal. See Stipulated Protective Order, ¶ 1, ECF No. 122. If any

12

Defendant objects to the public filing of the documents identified in Plaintiff’s Sealing Motion, it

13

shall file a declaration stating the basis for asserting confidentiality as to each exhibit Plaintiff

14

seeks to seal. These declarations must be filed by February 3, 2012. If no declaration is received,

15

the Court will order the relevant documents to be publicly filed without sealing.

16

The Parties are on notice that, in the future, failure to follow the local rules and to submit

17

declarations in support of motions to seal will result in denial of sealing motions and public filing

18

of documents.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 30, 2012

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: SEALING; AND DENYING JOINT REQUEST TO TAKE MOTION OFF CALENDAR