Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 90

ORDER Amending 88 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3
E-FILED on

4

/13

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

REALTEK SMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
LSI CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

No. C-12-03451 RMW
AMENDED ORDER DENYING REQUESTS
FOR ORDERS PERMITTING THE FILING
UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO STAY AND EXHIBITS
THERETO AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY
AND EXHIBITS THERETO
[Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 84]

19
20
21

Defendants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively "defendants") submitted a

22

request to file under seal: (1) designated portions of their Motion to Stay and the entirety of Exhibits

23

A, D, E, G and K to the Declaration of Charles A. Panell, III ("Panell Declaration") in support

24

thereof; and (2) designated portions of their Reply in Support of their Motion to Stay and the

25

entirety of Exhibits A and B to the Panell Declaration in Support thereof. The defendants' request is

26

based on the plaintiff's designation of the material as "Confidential and/or Highly Confidential –

27
28

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR ORDERS PERMITTING THE FILING UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY
AND EXHIBITS THERETO AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY AND EXHIBITS
THERETO—No. C-12-03451 RMW
ALG

1

Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the terms of the Protective Order. Sealing Mot. re: Motion to Stay 2,

2

Dkt. No. 71; Sealing Mot. re: Reply in Support of Mot. to Stay 2, Dkt. No. 84.

3

Under the local rule, however, "[a] stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a

4

party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under

5

seal" for that reason alone. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Having reviewed the designated documents and

6

portions thereof, the court does not believe that they are in fact "privileged or protectable as a trade

7

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Id. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to file the

8

required statement under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), which requires the designating party, within

9

seven days of the moving party's sealing request, to "file with the Court and serve a declaration

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

establishing that the designated information is sealable, and [the designating party] must lodge and

11

serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of

12

confidentiality. If the designated party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this

13

subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record." Id. 79-5(d)

14

(emphasis added).

15

In the event the plaintiff's failure to file the requisite responsive declaration was inadvertent,

May 8, 2013

16

the court gives plaintiff until April 7, 2013 to file a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order

17

indicating why the designated documents or portions thereof are in fact "privileged or protectable as

18

a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Id. 79-5(a). Otherwise, the

19

proposed filings will be made part of the public record.

20
21
22

DATED:

, 2013

RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR ORDERS PERMITTING THE FILING UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY
AND EXHIBITS THERETO AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY AND EXHIBITS
THERETO—No. C-12-03451 RMW
ALG
2