Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al
Filing
518
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 482 , 483 , 484 , 486 , 487 , 492 , 500 , and 514 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)
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
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, )
)
v.
)
)
WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
)
)
and
)
)
WESTERN DIGITAL (THAILAND)
)
COMPANY LIMITED and
)
WESTERN DIGITAL (MALAYSIA)
)
SDN.BHD,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
20
21
22
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 482, 483, 484, 486, 487,
492, 500, and 514)
Before the court are Defendants’ Western Digital Corp., et al. (collectively,
“Western Digital”) renewed sealing motions. The court presumes familiarity with the background
of this case 1 and turns immediately to the motions before it.
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
Unfamiliar readers are directed to three of the court’s recent summary judgment orders.
See Docket Nos. 442, 443, and 445.
1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
1
2
A.
Sealing Motions
3
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
4
documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing
5
request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 3 Parties seeking to seal
6
judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption
7
8
9
with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure. 4
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often
12
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
13
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
14
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
15
16
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,
17
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order
18
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
19
20
21
2
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).
3
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
4
Id. at 1178-79.
5
See id. at 1180.
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
7
Id.
22
23
24
25
26
8
27
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
28
9
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
2
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
3
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
4
5
6
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
Civil L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
7
8
9
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
11
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
12
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13
13
II. ANALYSIS
14
A.
GTE’s Daubert to Exclude James Pampinella
15
1.
16
Exhibit 1 to the Tadlock Declaration
GTE requests leave to file Figure 4: Test Cost Comparison on page 27 of Exhibit 1 under
17
18
seal, because the “contains confidential information of both GTE and Western Digital related to the
19
overall cost of certain of their head/disk testers (GTE’s V2002, and Western Digital’s DCT-400
20
21
22
10
23
11
24
25
26
27
28
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party
to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
12
Civil L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1) requires the submitting party to attach a
“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table
format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed” and an “unredacted version of
the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
that have been omitted” from the redacted version.
13
Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
and DBT testers), as well as the relative cost of these testers.” 14 Figure 4 may be sealed.
2
Western Digital also seeks sealing of paragraph 69 that “includes a graph that depicts
3
Western Digital’s internal procurement cost of the testers as compared to the cost of Guzik’s
4
products and paragraph 82” that “describes internal Western Digital business decisions and
5
identifies certain alternatives to the accused products considered by Western Digital and Western
6
Digital’s evaluation thereof.” 15 Paragraphs 69 and 82 may be sealed.
7
8
B.
Western Digital’s Daubert to Exclude Michael Wagner
1.
9
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit 1 to the Schon Declaration under seal, because the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Exhibit 1 to the Schon Declaration
11
“document includes the pricing for GTE's V2002 core equipment and cartridges, in addition to
12
GTE's operating margins for its core equipment and accessories. This information is present
13
throughout the document. GTE only provides pricing information to customers with whom it has
14
entered into confidentiality agreements, such as Master Purchase Agreements or non-disclosure
15
16
agreements. GTE also does not disclose its operating margins to non-GTE parties because this
17
would give an unfair advantage to its competitors by allowing competitors to undercut GTE's
18
pricing and exploit GTE's profit margins to GTE’s detriment.” 16 Exhibit 1 may be filed under seal.
19
C.
20
GTE’s MIL Nos. 1-10
1.
21
Exhibit 12
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 12, because “the excerpts contain
22
(A) information regarding system architecture, including information regarding what aspects of the
23
24
25
design are implemented in software and which are implemented in hardware and factors impacting
that design decision; (B) information regarding how certain measurements are taken, and (C)
26
14
Docket No. 482-1 at ¶ 4; see also Docket No. 482.
27
15
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 6a.
28
16
Docket No. 483-1 at ¶ 3.
4
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
information regarding the design of certain components of the testers that were the focus of GTE’s
2
now-dismissed trade secret misappropriation case.” 17 The redacted version of Exhibit 12 may be
3
filed on the docket.
4
2.
5
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 26, the deposition transcript of
6
Exhibit 26
Dr. Talke, because “the design of certain components of GTE’s head/disk tester products, which it
7
8
9
treats as highly confidential and regards as valuable trade secret information. More specifically, the
excerpts contain information regarding the design of certain components of the testers that were the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
focus of GTE’s now-dismissed trade secret misappropriation case.” 18 The redacted version of
11
Exhibit 26 may be filed on the docket.
12
3.
13
14
Exhibit 30
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 30, Mr. Jestice’s expert report,
because “document identifies file names for GTE’s highly confidential source code for its
15
16
head/disk tester products, which relate to their functionality. These file names also reflect certain
17
names of GTE’s customers’ head programs.” 19 The redacted version of Exhibit 30 may be filed on
18
the docket.
19
D.
20
Western Digital’s Opposition to GTE’s Daubert to Exclude James Pampinella
1.
21
Western Digital’s Opposition
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of its opposition, because the motion
22
“identifies specific price information for GTE's V2002 testers. GTE does not disclose prices for its
23
24
25
V2002 testers without entering into Master Purchase Agreements with confidentiality provisions
and/or Non-Disclosure Agreements. Public disclosure of this information this would create an
26
17
Docket No. 484-1 at ¶ 4.
27
18
Docket No. 484-1 at ¶ 6.
28
19
Docket No. 484-1 at ¶ 8.
5
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
2
unfair advantage to GTE's competitors by allowing competitors to exploit these numbers by
undercutting GTE’s prices.” 20 The redacted opposition may be filed on the docket.
3
2.
4
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit A, excerpts from Mr. Pampinella’s report, under seal,
5
because the “document includes specific pricing for GTE’s V2002 core equipment, GTE's sales
6
Exhibit A to the Schon Declaration
numbers from 2003 to 2012 period, and specific configuration options for the V2002 testers. GTE
7
8
9
only provides pricing information and configuration options to customers with whom it has entered
into Master Purchase Agreements with confidentiality provisions and/or Non-Disclosure
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Agreements. Public disclosure of this information would unduly harm GTE as customers may use
11
this information in an attempt to drive GTE's prices down.” 21 The redacted version of Exhibit A
12
may be filed on the docket, with the exception of paragraph 97 which may not be redacted.
13
3.
Exhibit B to the Schon Declaration
14
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit B, excerpts from Mr. Wagner’s
15
16
report, because the “document identifies cumulative sales unit numbers by GTE for the V2002
17
tester and DTR3000 testers. This document also includes excerpts from the deposition testimony of
18
GTE’s Director of Planning and Operations, Konstantin Perevoztchikov, who identified the
19
specific components involved in assembling a V2002 tester.” 22 GTE further “does not disclose the
20
identities of the specific components of the V2002 to parties with whom it has not entered into
21
Master Purchase Agreements with confidentiality provisions and/or Non-Disclosure Agreements.
22
GTE also does not disclose its sales numbers, including unit sales, to non-GTE individuals because
23
24
25
20
Docket No. 486-1 at ¶ 3a.
21
Docket No. 486-1 at ¶ 3b.
22
Docket No. 486-1 at ¶ 3c.
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
2
this could adversely affect GTE’s relationships with its customers and suppliers.” 23 The redacted
version of Exhibit B may be filed on the docket.
3
4.
4
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit C, excerpts from Mr. Wagner’s
5
6
Exhibit C to the Schon Declaration
deposition transcript, because the “document includes specific price information for GTE’s V2002
testers. GTE does not disclose prices for its V2002 testers without entering into Master Purchase
7
8
9
Agreements with confidentiality provisions and/or Non-Disclosure Agreements. Public disclosure
of this information would unduly harm GTE as customers may use this information in an attempt to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
drive GTE’s prices down.” 24 The redacted version of Exhibit C may be filed on the docket.
11
E.
Western Digital’s Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
12
1.
13
14
Exhibit F to the Woodhouse Declaration
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit F, excerpts from a document entitled “MSCAN Digital
Media Defect Scanning Package User’s Guide for WITE32 version 4.00,” under seal, because the
15
16
“document contains confidential technical information relating to the operation of GTE’s products
17
which GTE only provides to customers under the condition that such customers agree to maintain
18
the confidentiality of such information, such as through “Master Purchase Agreements” or non-
19
disclosure agreements. This information, which includes instructions and block diagrams relating
20
to certain tester sub-systems, is not available to the public. The disclosure of such information
21
22
would enable GTE’s competitors, or other interested individuals, to improperly use or replicate
GTE’s confidential information embodied in Exhibit F.” 25 Exhibit F may be filed under seal.
23
2.
24
Exhibit 34 to the Kolassa Declaration
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit 34, excerpts from a document that describes
25
26
23
Id.
27
24
Docket No. 486-1 at ¶ 3d.
28
25
Docket No. 487-1 at ¶ 4.
7
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
Texas Instruments’ SR1984AAA8/SR1984AAA4/SR1984ABA2 device, under seal, because the
2
exhibit “describes read amplifier data sheets for integrated circuits that were designed specifically
3
for Western Digital. This data sheet identifies, among other things, specific pin layouts and
4
configuration modes for the custom integrated circuit. Information regarding these custom
5
integrated circuits is not available to the public and its disclosure would enable individuals to gain
6
insight into Texas Instruments’ intellectual property and engineering capabilities, gain insight into
7
8
9
the chips used by GTE and Western Digital, and also to replicate and/or redesign these custom
devices using the information disclosed. Because the information was provided to GTE under a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Non-Disclosure Agreement, its public disclosure would expose GTE to potential legal and
11
financial consequences, and harm GTE’s competitive standing by adversely affecting GTE’s
12
business relationship with Texas Instruments or other potential vendors. Further, GTE derives a
13
14
business advantage from the information not being known by its competitors and the general
public.” 26 Exhibit 34 may be filed under seal.
15
3.
16
Exhibit 35 to the Kolassa Declaration
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit 35, excerpts from a document that describes the
17
18
functionality of Texas Instruments’ SR3480AAA4YZ device, under seal, because the exhibit
19
“describes read amplifier data sheets for integrated circuits that were designed specifically for
20
Western Digital. This data sheet identifies, among other things, specific pin layouts and
21
configuration modes for the custom integrated circuit. Information regarding these custom
22
integrated circuits is not available to the public and its disclosure would enable individuals to gain
23
24
insight into Texas Instruments’ intellectual property and engineering capabilities, gain insight into
25
the chips used by GTE and Western Digital, and also to replicate and/or redesign these custom
26
devices using the information disclosed. Because the information was provided to GTE under a
27
Non-Disclosure Agreement, its public disclosure would expose GTE to potential legal and
28
26
Docket No. 487-1 at ¶ 6.
8
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
financial consequences, and harm GTE’s competitive standing by adversely affecting GTE’s
2
business relationship with Texas Instruments or other potential vendors. Further, GTE derives a
3
business advantage from the information not being known by its competitors and the general
4
public.” 27 Exhibit 35 may be filed under seal.
5
4.
6
Exhibit 36 to the Kolassa Declaration
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit 36, excerpts from a document that describes the
7
8
9
functionality of Texas Instruments’ SR5580BAA2_CBA4_BAA6_BAA8_AAAA device, under
seal, because the exhibit “describes read amplifier data sheets for integrated circuits that were
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
designed specifically for Western Digital. This data sheet identifies, among other things, specific
11
pin layouts and configuration modes for the custom integrated circuit. Information regarding these
12
custom integrated circuits is not available to the public and its disclosure would enable individuals
13
to gain insight into Texas Instruments’ intellectual property and engineering capabilities, gain
14
insight into the chips used by GTE and Western Digital, and also to replicate and/or redesign these
15
16
custom devices using the information disclosed. Because the information was provided to GTE
17
under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, its public disclosure would expose GTE to potential legal and
18
financial consequences, and harm GTE’s competitive standing by adversely affecting GTE’s
19
business relationship with Texas Instruments or other potential vendors. Further, GTE derives a
20
business advantage from the information not being known by its competitors and the general
21
public.” 28 Exhibit 36 may be filed under seal.
22
5.
Exhibit 38 to the Kolassa Declaration
23
GTE requests leave to file Exhibit 38, excerpts from a document that describes the
24
25
functionality of Texas Instruments’ SR3482ABA6/ABA4/AAA2YZ device, under seal, because
26
the exhibit “describes read amplifier data sheets for integrated circuits that were designed
27
27
Docket No. 487-1 at ¶ 7.
28
28
Docket No. 487-1 at ¶ 8.
9
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
specifically for Western Digital. This data sheet identifies, among other things, specific pin layouts
2
and configuration modes for the custom integrated circuit. Information regarding these custom
3
integrated circuits is not available to the public and its disclosure would enable individuals to gain
4
insight into Texas Instruments’ intellectual property and engineering capabilities, gain insight into
5
the chips used by GTE and Western Digital, and also to replicate and/or redesign these custom
6
devices using the information disclosed. Because the information was provided to GTE under a
7
8
9
Non-Disclosure Agreement, its public disclosure would expose GTE to potential legal and
financial consequences, and harm GTE’s competitive standing by adversely affecting GTE’s
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
business relationship with Texas Instruments or other potential vendors. Further, GTE derives a
11
business advantage from the information not being known by its competitors and the general
12
public.” 29 Exhibit 38 may be filed under seal.
13
F.
Western Digital’s Trial Brief, MIL, and Daubert Motions
14
1.
Trial Brief
15
Western Digital requests leave to file a modified redacted version of its trial brief. The
16
17
court will accept additional redactions to page 7 lines 18-19. All other redactions may not be
18
redacted pursuant to the court’s prior sealing order. 30
19
2.
20
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 25, the Messner
21
Exhibit 25 to the Kolassa Declaration
Rebuttal Expert Report, because “Dr. Messner provided an expert report on behalf of Western
22
Digital regarding the structure and function of the accused products and Western Digital considers
23
24
the information in this document to be highly sensitive regarding the detailed design features of its
25
26
29
Docket No. 487-1 at ¶ 9.
30
See Docket No. 465 at 5-6.
27
28
10
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
production head testers.” 31 The redacted version of Exhibit 25 may be filed on the docket.
2
3.
Exhibit 26 to the Kolassa Declaration
3
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 26, Dr. Talke’s
4
deposition, under seal, because “Dr. Talke discusses at length the specific design features of the
5
EH-300 and DCT-400.” 32 The redacted version of Exhibit 26 may be filed on the docket.
6
4.
Exhibit D to the Mosley Declaration
7
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit D, excerpts from
8
9
Dr. Phinney’s expert report, because “Dr. Phinney provides testimony regarding the structure and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
function of the accused products, including but not limited to source code, and Western Digital
11
considers the information in this document to be highly sensitive. Exhibit G of Exhibit D to the
12
Mosley Messner Daubert Decl. is an infringement claim chart that details confidential information
13
14
about the structure and function of the accused products. For example, this document contains
information regarding the hardware layout of Western Digital’s servo board, including the specific
15
16
components of the board. It additionally describes Western Digital’s method of reading and writing
17
servo bursts, including the servo burst patterns.” 33 The redacted version of Exhibit D may be filed
18
on the docket.
19
5.
20
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit F, excerpts from
21
Exhibit F to the Mosley Declaration
Dr. Messner’s expert report, because “Dr. Messner provided an expert report regarding the
22
structure and function of the accused products and Western Digital considers the information in
23
24
this document to be highly sensitive. For example, Dr. Messner discusses details of the accused
25
26
31
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 3a.
27
32
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 3b.
28
33
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 4a.
11
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
2
products’ head positioning capabilities, feedback means, and use of servo.” 34 The redacted version
of Exhibit F may be filed on the docket.
3
6.
4
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 1, excerpts from
5
6
Exhibit 1 to the Woodhouse Declaration
Dr. Phinney’s expert report. The court has already granted sealing the exhibit. 35 The redacted
version of Exhibit 1 may be filed on the docket.
7
7.
8
Exhibit 2 to the Woodhouse Declaration
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 2, excerpts from
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dr. Messner’s expert report, for the same reason as Exhibit F above. 36 The redacted version of
11
Exhibit 2 may be filed on the docket.
12
8.
13
14
Exhibit 1 to the Tadlock Deposition
The court has already determined that paragraphs 69 and 81 to the Tadlock Deposition may
be redacted. 37
15
9.
16
Western Digital’s Opposition to GTE’s Daubert to Exclude James Pampinella
17
The court has already determined that the redacted opposition may be filed on the docket. 38
18
10.
19
The court has already determined that the redacted version of Exhibit A may be filed on the
20
Exhibit A to the Schon Declaration
docket, with the exception of paragraph 97 which may not be redacted. 39
21
22
23
34
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 4b.
24
35
See Docket No. 465 at 15.
25
36
See Section F.5.
26
37
See Section A.1.
27
38
See Section D.1.
28
39
See Section D.2.
12
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
11.
1
The court has already determined that the redacted version of Exhibit C may be filed on the
2
3
docket. 40
4
12.
5
6
Exhibit C to the Schon Declaration
Exhibit H to the Woodhouse Declaration
Western Digital requests leave to file Exhibit H, an e-mail from JD Buttar to Saovanee
Kietisingnakorn and Trung Vinh with subject “NPL Unique test tool matrix,” dated October 2,
7
8
9
2008, under seal, because the exhibit “includes information on the structure and function of the
accused products, including their capabilities, improvements over other testers, and internal
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
development plans. If this information were disclosed, the public and Western Digital’s
11
competitors would gain insight into Western Digital’s engineering capabilities and product
12
design.” 41 Exhibit H may be filed under seal.
13
13.
14
Western Digital’s Reply Supporting Its Daubert Motion to Exclude
Michael Wagner
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of its reply brief, because “Western
15
16
Digital business information which it considers highly sensitive. For example, the Wagner Reply
17
contains information regarding Western Digital’s current and historic head testing statistics. If this
18
information were disclosed, the public and Western Digital’s competitors would gain insight into
19
Western Digital’s internal operations and may gain a competitive advantage.” 42 The redacted
20
21
version of the reply brief may be filed on the docket.
14.
22
Exhibit 2 to the Schon Declaration
23
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 2, excerpts from
24
Mr. Pampinella’s expert report, because “Western Digital financial and business information which
25
it considers to be highly sensitive. The information at Paragraph 101 and Figure 5 should be sealed
26
40
See Section D.4.
27
41
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 8a.
28
42
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 9a.
13
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
because it is the same chart and information that Court sealed with respect to Guzik’s Reply to its
2
Motion to Exclude Portions of Mr. Pampinella’s Testimony.” 43 The redacted version of Exhibit 2
3
may be filed on the docket.
4
15.
5
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 3, the deposition
6
Exhibit 3 to the Schon Declaration
transcript of Mr. Wagner, because the “document contains Western Digital financial and business
7
8
9
information which it considers to be highly sensitive. For example, Mr. Wagner provides testimony
on Western Digital’s purchasing history and testing capabilities and provides information regarding
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Western Digital’s head testing statistics and failure rates.” 44 The redacted version of Exhibit 3 may
11
be filed on the docket.
12
G.
13
GTE’s Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,023,145 Is Not
Anticipated or Obvious
1.
14
Exhibit B to the Kolassa Declaration
15
GTE requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit B, Dr. Messnner’s expert report,
16
because pages “‘v’ and ‘vi’ of the table of contents of Exhibit B refer to GTE’s confidential and
17
trade secret information. Such information specifically refers to and describes certain confidential
18
design features of components to GTE’s head/disk testers. The confidential features described in
19
the table of contents of Exhibit B have significant value to GTE. Accordingly, GTE only sells
20
21
products incorporating these design features to customers who have executed non-disclosure
22
agreements or “master purchase agreements” that impose an obligation of confidentiality. The
23
public disclosure of GTE’s confidential design features would enable a competitor to unfairly
24
profit from GTE’s internally developed technologies (free of the R&D expenses that GTE incurred
25
26
27
43
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 9b; see also Docket No. 465 at 18.
28
44
Docket No. 492-1 at ¶ 9c.
14
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
2
to come up with these features), which would harm GTE’s competitive standing.” 45 The redacted
version of Exhibit B may be filed on the docket.
3
2.
4
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit E, Dr. Messner’s
5
6
Exhibit E to the Kolassa Declaration
rebuttal expert report, because the report describes “the structure and function of the Accused
Products and Western Digital considers the information in this document to be highly sensitive
7
8
9
regarding the detailed design features of its production head testers. Furthermore, Dr. Messner
provided testimony on the capabilities of the Accused Products and how to add and remove
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
functionalities.” 46 The redacted version of Exhibit E may be filed on the docket.
11
H.
Western Digital’s Opposition to GTE’s Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S.
Patent No. 6,023,145 Is Not Anticipated or Obvious
12
1.
13
Exhibit G to the Woodhouse Declaration
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit G, excerpts from
14
15
Dr. Phinney’s expert report, because the report “provides infringement claim charts that detail
16
confidential information about the structure and function of the Accused Products. These claim
17
charts include for example, information regarding the hardware layout of Western Digital’s servo
18
board, including the specific components of the board as well as descriptions of source code
19
functionality. They additionally describe Western Digital’s method of reading and writing servo
20
21
bursts, including the servo burst patterns. The infringement claim chart is based on confidential
22
information that was provided as part of this litigation, which is highly sensitive and technical in
23
nature. The Court has previously allowed sealing of one of these claim charts, 47 however, as these
24
claim charts contain the same amount of detail and differ only with respect to the product, Western
25
26
45
Docket No. 500-1 at ¶¶ 4-5.
27
46
Docket No. 514-1 at ¶ 2a.
28
47
See Docket No. 465 at 15.
15
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
Digital believes sealing of both claim charts is necessary.” 48 The redacted version of Exhibit G
2
may be filed on the docket.
3
I.
Western Digital’s Opposition to GTE’s Motion to Strike Western Digital’s Untimely
Identified Witnesses
4
1.
Exhibit P to the Woodhouse Declaration
5
Western Digital requests leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit P, excerpts from
6
7
Mr. Pampinella’s rebuttal expert report, because although the court already granted sealing of
8
Pages 9-13, 18, 27-29, 42 and 44-45. 49 However, this document contains additional sensitive
9
financial information of Western Digital and Guzik which also warrants sealing. For example,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
unredacted portions of this document at pages 54-57 contain dollar amounts for Western Digital’s
capital and operating costs for its internally developed testers which Western Digital considers
12
13
highly sensitive.” 50
GTE also submitted a declaration supporting the redaction of portions of Exhibit P. GTE
14
15
argues the redacted “excerpts contain sales information from which GTE’s pricing of its V2002 test
16
systems may be derived. GTE only provides pricing information and configuration options to
17
customers with whom it has entered into Master Purchase Agreements with confidentiality
18
provisions and/or Non-Disclosure Agreements. More specifically, the excerpts contained in
19
paragraphs 39-41 (and associated footnote 89), 45, 54-59, 116-117, 122, 127, 133, 143, 146-147,
20
21
149-151 and footnote 195 contain (A) sales volume information; (B) sales revenue information,
22
and (C) profits associated with those sales. The public disclosure of this information could have
23
financial consequences to GTE and threaten its competitive standing.” 51
24
The parties’ proposed redacted version of Exhibit P may be filed on the docket.
25
48
Docket No. 514-1 at ¶ 3a.
26
49
See Docket No. 476 at 8.
27
50
Docket No. 514-1 at ¶ 4a.
28
51
Docket No. 515 at ¶ 3.
16
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
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?