Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 91

ORDER amending 89 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3
E-FILED on 5/1/13

4
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

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

No. C-12-03451 RMW
AMENDED ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE FILING
UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND EXHIBITS THERETO
[Re: Dkt. No. 76]

18
19
20

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

21

request to file under seal designated portions of their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial

22

Summary Judgment and the entirety of Exhibits 1, 5, 6 and 7 to the Declaration of Charles A.

23

Pannel, III, in support of the motion. Defendants' basis for the sealing request is that plaintiff's

24

counsel designated the documents as "Confidential and/or Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes

25

Only" under the terms of the Protective Order. Sealing Mot. 2, Dkt. No. 76. The defendants further

26

assert: "[T]hese documents . . . discuss a high-level RAND licensing proposal. The contents of the

27
28
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE FILING UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS THERETO—No. C-12-03451 RMW
ALG

1

proposal are highly confidential and thus the documents are subject of a non-disclosure agreement

2

signed by Realtek and LSI on June 14, 2012." Mot. 2, Dkt. No. 76.

3

Having thoroughly reviewed the documents, the court finds that they do not contain any

4

information that is "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

5

under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Under the local rules, "[a] stipulation, or a blanket protective

6

order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of

7

documents under seal" for that reason alone. Id.

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Exhibit 1, which relates to Realtek's sales and current or potential loss of market share is not
a trade secret or otherwise privileged.
Exhibit 5 does not contain any confidential terms of a licensing proposal. Rather, the

11

document merely establishes that LSI communicated with Realtek and offered a "WLAN RAND"

12

proposal to Realtek in June 2012.

13

With respect to Exhibit 6, no figures are listed here so it is hard to see why the document

14

should be kept confidential. The court is not persuaded that the amount of a RAND license should

15

be kept confidential in any event. Moreover, the statements of LSI's Vice President of Licensing

16

regarding his personal opinions of the ITC litigation do not seem to be subject to any attorney client

17

privilege.

18

Exhibit 7 simply discloses Realtek's position regarding defendants' RAND licensing

19

obligation and its willingness to take a RAND license. Nothing contained therein is a trade secret or

20

otherwise privileged.

21

Unless the designating party files an amended, narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order

May 8, 2013

22

specifically identifying the privileged materials and the reason therefore, on or before April 7, 2013,

23

the proposed filings will be made part of the public record.

24
25
26

DATED: May 1, 2013

RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

27
28
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE FILING UNDER SEAL OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS THERETO—No. C-12-03451 RMW
ALG
2