Tessera, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation

Filing 210

ORDER DENYING 209 TOSHIBA'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/14/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
TESSERA, INC.,

7

Case No. 15-cv-02543-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

10

Defendant.
11

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA'S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REDACT
PORTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

[Re: ECF 209]
12
Currently before the Court is Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) unopposed motion to

13
14

redact portions of the September 22, 2016 hearing transcript pursuant to the Court’s order. ECF

15

209. Because Toshiba’s motion fails to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and Standing Order

16

re Civil Cases, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), a party seeking to file a document, or portions thereof,

17
18

under seal must file an administrative motion to file under seal, in conformance with Civil L.R. 7-

19

11. The administrative motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration establishing that the

20

document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable; (2) a proposed order that

21

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material; (3) a redacted version of the document that

22

is sought to be filed under seal1; and (4) an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed

23

under seal, indicating, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that

24

have been omitted from the redacted version. Toshiba’s motion does not comply with Civil L.R.

25

7-11, in that it does not set forth the reasons supporting the motion.2 Additionally, Toshiba’s

26
1

27
28

Because Toshiba seeks to redact portions of a hearing transcript, which are properly filed by the
court reporter upon the Court’s order, Toshiba need not file a redacted version of the transcript.
2
The motion also fails to indicate why the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored, in violation
of Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

1

motion is not accompanied by a declaration or an unredacted version of the transcript with

2

highlighting to indicate the portions of the document to be redacted, which may be filed under

3

seal.

4

Toshiba’s motion also violates this Court’s Standing Order re Civil Cases, which prohibits

5

incorporation by reference. See Standing Order re Civil Cases, subsection E.2 (“All factual and

6

legal bases for a party’s position must be presented in the briefs submitted in connection with the

7

particular motion before the Court.”); Mot. 2, ECF 209 (“Toshiba submits that for the same

8

reasons cited in Toshiba’s Motion to Close the Courtroom, the proposed redactions to the

9

transcript are sealable.”).

10

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Toshiba’s motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE to it refiling

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the motion in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules and Standing Order re Civil Cases.

12

Toshiba shall file an administrative motion to redact the transcript on or before October 21, 2016.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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