VIA Technologies, Inc. (a California corporation) et al v. ASUS Computer International et al

Filing 302

ORDER GRANTING 298 DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S JULY 5, 2017 SEALING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/11/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO REQUEST PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S JULY 5, 2017 SEALING
ORDER
[Re: ECF 298]

13
14

Defendants move pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) for leave to file a motion for

15

partial reconsideration of the Court’s July 5, 2017 Omnibus Order Re: Administrative Motions to

16

Seal Documents (“Order”). ECF 279.

17

The Court’s Order sealed all of the portions of Exhibit 7 to the Lee Declaration (ECF 265-

18

11) identified by Defendants in the Declaration of Vid R. Bhakar in Support of Plaintiffs’

19

Administrative Motion to Seal (ECF 274). However, Defendants inadvertently did not include

20

page 27, line 9 in their identification of sealable material. Supplemental Declaration of Vid R.

21

Bhakar ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 298-1. Page 27, line 9 contains highly confidential and sensitive information

22

about Defendants’ internal business and accounting practices concerning sensitive financial

23

information of Defendants about R&D expenses and allocation of costs. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. Accordingly,

24

Defendants seek leave to move for partial reconsideration so that the Court may, upon

25

reconsideration, order that page 27, line 9 of Exhibit 7 to the Lee Declaration (ECF 265-11)

26

remain under seal. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion. Mot. 5, ECF 298.

27
28

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) permits reconsideration of an order where there is a “manifest
failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented

1

to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Here, the Court finds that

2

Defendants’ identification of page 27, line 9 as containing sealable material constitutes a “material

3

fact[] [not] presented to the Court before” its Order. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for leave to

4

move for reconsideration is GRANTED.

5

The Court also finds that Defendants’ submission at ECF 298 suffices as a motion for

6

reconsideration, and construes it as such. The Court finds that Defendants have articulated good

7

cause to seal page 27, line 9 of Exhibit 7 to the Lee Declaration (ECF 265-11). The Court also

8

finds this request narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court revises its Order at ECF 279 and

9

further GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibit 7 to the Lee Declaration (ECF 265-

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

11) as to page 29, line 7. The Court’s Order otherwise remains unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: July 11, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2