VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
Filing
602
ORDER DENYING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO EXTEND DEADLINES PURSUANTTO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-5(F)(3) (Addressing 600 , 601 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/29/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2023)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
10
INTEL CORPORATION,
11
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
EXTEND DEADLINES PURSUANT
TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-5(F)(3)
[Re ECF Nos. 600 and 601]
12
13
Before the Court are two joint administrative motions filed in connection with the Parties’
14
cross motions for summary judgment: 1) to extend deadlines for the parties to submit declarations
15
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) (ECF No. 600); and 2) to extend deadlines for non-parties
16
to submit declarations pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) (ECF No. 601). Both motions
17
request an extension to submit declarations until October 19, 2023. The Parties seek this
18
extension because they “anticipate that at least some of this same information will be filed with the
19
parties’ responsive and reply briefs to the Motions for Summary Judgment. To reduce the burden
20
on the non-parties of preparing multiple duplicative declarations, and the Court of reviewing
21
them.” ECF Nos. 600, 601.
22
The Parties filed the corresponding motions for summary judgment on August 24, 2023.
23
Responses are due on September 21, 2023 and replies are due October 5, 2023. ECF No. 388.
24
The hearing date for both summary judgment motions (ECF Nos. 580, 586) is October 19, 2023.
25
Id.
26
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
27
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
28
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
2
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
3
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Only in rare circumstances should a party seek to
4
file portions of a pleading or brief under seal.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e).
5
The Court recognizes the burden on the Parties. However, the Court is concerned that the
6
delay caused by extending deadlines will unnecessarily shield non-confidential information from
7
the public until after the hearing date. To date, the parties have filed nine Daubert briefs, all either
8
under seal or redacted in their entirety: ECF Nos. 541, 548, 549, 560, 564, 572, 592, 596, 597. As
9
for the summary judgment motions at issue, Intel’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 580)
10
was filed completely redacted, while VLSI’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 586) was
11
filed with redactions limited to confidential information. The Parties’ over-inclusive provisional
12
sealing or redaction of these briefs denies the public their right to these records where it is clear
13
that only a small portion of those documents will be the subject of the ultimate sealing request.
14
As such, each motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Parties are instructed to file a
15
joint motion that outlines a plan for releasing public versions of their briefs with only confidential
16
information redacted as soon as is feasible and prior to their respective hearing dates. The Court is
17
amenable to underlying exhibits staying under seal past the hearing date if it reduces the burden on
18
the parties and the Court will grant the request for extension of time to submit declarations to
19
support narrowly tailored redactions upon agreement to expeditiously file partially redacted
20
versions of these briefs.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
Dated: August 29, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?