Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 341

ORDER GRANTING Trial Transcript Redactions. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/10/14. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR,
CORPORATION,

13

Case No. C-12-3451-RMW

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED
TRANSCRIPT REDACTIONS

LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE
SYSTEMS LLC,

16
17

Defendants.

18
19

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

20

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

21

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

22

& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of

23

access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

24

1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions or trial

25

transcripts bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh

26

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

27
28

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court has broad
discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or
ORDER GRANTING TRIAL REDACTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-1-

1

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G).

2

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts,

3

holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of

4

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an

5

advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th

6

Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the production of

7

goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business. . . .” Id.

8

In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial

9

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

11

The Court GRANTS the parties’ proposed transcript redactions. All proposed redactions are

12

narrowly tailored to confidential business information in accordance with Civ. L. R. 79-5. The

13

proposed redactions on the following pages and lines are GRANTED:

14

February 13, 2014 Trial Transcript

15

•

596:24

16

•

597:24

17

•

598:3, 8, 14, 22

18

•

599:4, 6, 15, 18

19

•

601:17-604:23

20

February 18, 2014 Trial Transcript

21

•

720: 17, 19

22

•

721: 3, 16, 19

23

•

722: 4, 6, 9, 13, 18, 23, 24

24

•

723: 2, 21, 23, 24

25

•

724: 11, 22

26

•

725: 23, 24

27

•

726: 25

28

•

727: 5

ORDER GRANTING TRIAL REDACTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-2-

1

•

729: 1, 3

2

•

730: 7, 20

3

February 19, 2014 Trial Transcript
•

906:24-907:6

5

•

907:12-911:7

6

•

911:16-913:13

7

•

914:3-10

8

•

915:10-11

9

•

915:20-917:18

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

•

918:3-6

11

•

918:11-919:10

12

•

919:15-920:5

13

•

920:9-921:1

14

•

921:5-7

15

•

930:2-940:2

16

•

941:2-951:8

17

•

951:21-954:24

18

•

955:7-18

19

•

955:25-956:12

20

February 20, 2014 Trial Transcript

21

•

1147:5-1149:23

22

•

1156:5-1159:6

23

•

1160:13-1163:4

24

•

1164:9-1167:1

25

•

1167:11-23

26

•

1169:8-1170:23

27

•

1173:12-1174:17

28

•

1216:3-1219:6

ORDER GRANTING TRIAL REDACTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-3-

1

•

1219:19-1221:2

2

•

1223:9-13

3

February 24, 2014 Trial Transcript
•

1315:3-9

5

•

1315:19-1316:3

6

•

1316:17-19

7

•

1317:15-24

8

•

1319:5-7

9

•

1319:10-14

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

•

1319:19-22

11

•

1321:16-25

12

•

1326:16-1328:11

13

•

1328:15-23

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: April 10, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING TRIAL REDACTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-4-