VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
Filing
909
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS ( 869 , 870 , 875 , 877 , 878 , 879 , 889 , 890 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/8/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2024)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
v.
10
INTEL CORPORATION,
11
Defendant.
[Re: ECF Nos. 869, 870, 875, 877, 878, 879,
889, 890]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Before the court are eight administrative motions filed in connection with VLSI
Technology LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Counterclaim:
1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed. ECF No. 869.
2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed. ECF No. 870.
3. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Opposition to VLSI Technology LLC's
21
Motion to Dismiss Intel's Second Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims.
22
ECF No. 875.
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed. ECF No. 877.
5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed. ECF No. 878.
6. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed. ECF No. 879.
7. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
1
Sealed. ECF No. 889.
2
8. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
3
Sealed. ECF No. 890.
4
For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the administrative motions.
5
6
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
8
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of
9
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435
10
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
11
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
12
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
13
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
14
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
15
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
16
1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
17
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
18
of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809
19
F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to
20
court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
21
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal
22
the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
23
26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard
24
requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
25
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
26
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
27
by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.
28
Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
2
1
DISCUSSION
2
A.
3
VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material
ECF No. 869
4
Should Be Sealed on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 869. Intel submitted a declaration and exhibits
5
in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 871, 872. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the motion and
6
its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 871. Intel writes that the information should be sealed
7
because “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel at a competitive
8
disadvantage in future business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into
9
their own business strategies to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” Id. ¶ 11. Intel
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
II.
argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 12.
11
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
12
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
13
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
14
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
15
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
16
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
17
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
18
19
20
21
ECF or
Document
Portion(s) to Seal
Exhibit No.
868
VLSI’s Motion Green-highlighted portions
to Dismiss
on pages 6-9
22
23
24
Ex. 1
25
26
27
28
Ruling
Granted, as the green-highlighted
portions contain highly
confidential excerpts from Intel’s
license agreement with Finjan
that the Court has previously
sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt.
784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863.
Intel’s Motion Green-highlighted portion on Granted, as the green-highlighted
portions contain highly
to Amend,
page 3
confidential excerpts from Intel’s
Sever, and Stay
license agreement with Finjan
(W.D. Tex.)
that the Court has previously
sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt.
784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863.
3
1
Intel’s Motion
to Stay (W.D.
Tex.)
Ex. 2
2
Green-highlighted portions
on page 4
3
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
Granted, as the green-highlighted
portions contain highly
confidential excerpts from Intel’s
license agreement with Finjan
that the Court has previously
sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt.
784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863.
5
B.
6
VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material
7
Should Be Sealed on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 870. Finjan LLC (“Finjan”) submitted a
8
declaration and exhibits in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 873, 874. Finjan seeks to seal selected
9
portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 873. Finjan writes that the
ECF No. 870
10
information should be sealed because the documents “reference and/or quote to language from
11
non-public portions of a confidential patent license and settlement agreement between Intel and
12
Finjan Inc. and Finjan Software, Inc.” Id. ¶ 5. Finjan argues that the portions are narrowly
13
tailored. Id.
14
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
15
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
16
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
17
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
18
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
19
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
20
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF or
Exhibit
No.
ECF No.
868
Docum Portion(s) to Seal
ent
Ruling
VLSI’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
Granted, as these portions of VLSI’s
Motion to Dismiss cite to, and/or
reflect highly confidential, non-public
information relating to Finjan’s
licenses and license agreement terms,
which the Court has previously sealed
via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and 863.
The redacted portions of VLSI’s
Motion to Dismiss, at:
• page 6 at portions of lines 5-6;
• page 7 at the word in line 21;
• page 8 at portions of lines 1-2,
4, 14-15, 16 (full line), 19-21,
22- 23 (full lines), and 24;
• page 9, portions of lines 1-2,
4
1
ECF
870-3
Exhibit Green highlighted portions at page
1 to
3.
VLSI’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
ECF
870-4
Exhibit
2 to
VLSI’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
ECF
870-7
Exhibit
5 to
VLSI’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Granted, as these portions cite to,
and/or reflect highly confidential, nonpublic information relating to Finjan’s
licenses and license agreement terms,
which the Court has previously sealed
via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and 863.
Green highlighted portions at page Granted, as these portions cite to,
and/or reflect highly confidential, non4.
public information relating to Finjan’s
licenses and license agreement terms,
which the Court has previously sealed
via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and 863.
Green highlighted portion at page Granted, as these portions cite to,
and/or reflect highly confidential, non2.
public information relating to Finjan’s
licenses and license agreement terms,
which the Court has previously sealed
via this Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and 863.
13
C.
14
Intel filed the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Opposition to VLSI Technology
ECF No. 875
15
LLC's Motion to Dismiss Intel's Second Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims on
16
March 1, 2024. ECF No. 875. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the brief. Id. Intel writes
17
that the information should be sealed because “Disclosure of licensing information regarding
18
Intel’s prior license agreements, such as the scope of Intel’s licenses and other terms from Intel’s
19
agreements, would provide competitors and potential counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s
20
business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” Id. at 3. Intel argues that the portions are narrowly
21
tailored. Id.
22
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
23
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
24
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
25
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
26
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
27
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
28
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
5
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
Intel’s Opposition
to VLSI’s Motion
to Dismiss Intel’s
Second Amended
Answer,
Defenses, and
Counterclaims
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
Green highlighted
portions of 1:13- 14,
1:22, 7:7-13, 7:15, 7:1718, 8:2-3, 8:24, 9:4, 9:7,
9:9, 9:11-12, 9:14, 9:2728, 10:2-3.
Granted, as the green highlighted
portions on page 1, lines 13-14 and
22; page 7, lines 7-13, 15, and 1718; page 8, lines 2-3 and 24; page 9,
lines 4, 7, 9, 11- 12, 14, and 27-28;
and page 10, lines 2-3 contain a
highly confidential excerpt from
Intel’s license agreement with Finjan
that the Court has previously sealed.
Dkt. 339; Dkt. 659; Dkt. 784; Dkt.
853; Dkt. 863.
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
10
D.
11
Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should
ECF No. 877
12
Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 877. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 4, 2024,
13
ECF No. 880, and Finjan submitted a declaration in support of sealing. ECF No. 882. Finjan
14
seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 877. Finjan
15
writes that the information should be sealed because the documents “reference and/or quote to
16
language from non-public portions of a confidential patent license and settlement agreement
17
between Intel and Finjan Inc. and Finjan Software, Inc.” Id. ¶ 5. Finjan argues that the portions
18
are narrowly tailored. Id.
19
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
20
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
21
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
22
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
23
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
24
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
25
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
26
27
\\
28
\\
6
1
2
3
4
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
ECF No.
Intel’s
876 (see
Opposition
ECF No.
875-3)
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
The redacted/green-boxed
portions of Intel’s
Opposition as reflected in
ECF No. 876 (and ECF 8753). These redactions/green
boxed portions are at:
• page 1 at portions of
lines 13-14 and 22;
• page 7 at portions of
lines 7-13, 15, and 1718;
• page 8 at portions of
lines 2-3, and 24;
• page 9 at portions of
lines 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14,
and 27-28; and
• page 10, portions of lines
2-3.
Granted, as these portions of
Intel’s Opposition cite to, and/or
reflect highly confidential, nonpublic information relating to
Finjan’s licenses and license
agreement terms, which the Court
has previously sealed via this
Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and
863.
13
14
E.
ECF No. 878
15
Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should
16
Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 878. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 6, 2024,
17
ECF No. 884, and NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. (“NXP”) submitted a declaration and exhibits
18
in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 886, 887. NXP seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its
19
corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 886. NXP writes that the information should be sealed because
20
“The portions of the deposition transcript that NXP seeks to seal all relate to highly-confidential
21
information regarding its past and current intellectual property licensing and monetization
22
objectives, strategies, practices, capabilities, and efforts. Public disclosure of this information
23
would provide NXP’s competitors with sensitive information regarding NXP’s internal business
24
practices, as well as its relationships with other companies in the semiconductor industry and the
25
patent licensing industry, thus disadvantaging NXP in future business and contract negotiations.”
26
Id. ¶ 8. NXP argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5.
27
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
28
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
7
1
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
2
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
3
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
4
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
5
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF or
Exhibit No.
ECF No.
878-02 Ex.
1 to Intel’s
Opposition
to VLSI’s
Motion to
Dismiss
Document
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
Excerpts from
the July 26,
2019
Deposition of
Lee Chastain
Blue-highlighted portions at
179:7- 18.
Granted, as the highlighted
testimony identifies and describes
(1) confidential patent agreements
entered into between
NXP/Freescale and other parties;
and (2) confidential business
information regarding corporate
objectives and strategy. See infra
¶¶ 6–10.
13
14
F.
15
Intel filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should
ECF No. 879
16
Be Sealed on March 1, 2024. ECF No. 879. Intel filed a certificate of service on March 4, 2024,
17
ECF No. 880, and Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”) submitted a declaration in support
18
of sealing. ECF Nos. 883. Fortress seeks to seal selected portions an exhibit. Id. Fortress writes
19
that the information should be sealed because “[t]his document reflects and contains highly
20
sensitive and proprietary Fortress internal business data and information regarding financial
21
analysis and methods, investment analyses, acquisition strategies, corporate formation and
22
management, and financial and accounting data.” Id. ¶ 9. Fortress argues that the portions are
23
narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 12.
24
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
25
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
26
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
27
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
28
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
8
1
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
2
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
3
4
5
6
7
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
Ex. 2
VLSI
Technology
LLC Report
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
Portions highlighted in green Granted, as this document is a
highly sensitive and proprietary
on first, second, and third
internal financial analysis
pages.
document. It contains investment,
financial, and accounting
information, and reflects
proprietary financial analysis
methods that constitute
confidential business information.
Redacted portions also include
personal information that is not
relevant to any matter in this case.
13
G.
14
VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material
ECF No. 889
15
Should Be Sealed on March 8, 2024. ECF No. 889. Intel submitted a declaration and exhibits in
16
support of sealing. ECF Nos. 891, 892. Intel seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its
17
corresponding exhibits. ECF No. 891. Intel writes that the information should be sealed because
18
“[d]isclosure of licensing information regarding Intel’s prior license agreements, such as the scope
19
of Intel’s licenses and other terms from Intel’s agreements, would provide competitors and
20
potential counterparties with unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit
21
analyses..” Id. ¶ 8. Intel argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 7.
22
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
23
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
24
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
25
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
26
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
27
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
28
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
9
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
ECF or Exhibit Document Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
No.
888 (public
VLSI’s
Green-highlighted
Granted, as the green-highlighted
redacted version) Reply
portions of the Table of portions in the Table of Contents and
889-02
Contents, 2:14-16, 2:23- on page 2, lines 14-16 and 23-27; page
(unredacted
27, 3:2-6, 3:8, 3:15-16, 3, lines 2-6, 8, 15-16, and 18; and
version filed
3:18, 4:1-5, 4:7-9, 4:12, page 4, lines 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and
under seal as an
19 contain highly confidential
4:14-15, 4:19.
Exhibit to
excerpts from Intel’s license
VLSI’s
agreement with Finjan that the Court
Administrative
has previously sealed. Dkt. 339; Dkt.
Motion)
659; Dkt. 784; Dkt. 853; Dkt. 863.
10
H.
ECF No. 890
11
VLSI filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material
12
Should Be Sealed on March 8, 2024. ECF No. 890. Finjan submitted a declaration in support of
13
sealing. ECF Nos. 893. Finjan seeks to seal selected portions of the brief and its corresponding
14
exhibits. Id. Finjan writes that the information should be sealed because “the confidential terms
15
in the Patent License Settlement Agreement, including the compensation terms, patents licensed,
16
and other substantive provisions, are maintained as highly confidential within Finjan to only those
17
with a need to know, and may be disclosed in litigation only when relevant and under the highest
18
level of confidentiality.” Id. ¶ 6. Finjan argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 5.
19
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the
20
document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1
21
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under
22
“compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG,
23
2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential
24
business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons
25
standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
26
27
\\
28
\\
10
1
2
3
ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
ECF No.
VLSI’s Reply
888
4
5
6
7
8
9
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
The redacted portions of
VLSI’s Reply as reflected in
ECF No. 888. These
redactions are at:
• page i (quotes in items
II(A)(1) and (2);
• page 2, portions of lines
14-16, and 23-27;
• page 3, portions of lines
2-6, 8, 15-16, and 18; and
• page 4, portions of lines
1-5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and
19.
Granted, as these portions of
VLSI’s Reply cite to, and/or
reflect highly confidential,
nonpublic information relating to
Finjan’s licenses and license
agreement terms, which the Court
has previously sealed via this
Court’s Orders at ECF No. 339
and again at ECF No. 769 and
863.
10
III.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. ECF No. 869 is GRANTED.
2. ECF No. 870 is GRANTED.
3. ECF No. 875 is GRANTED.
4. ECF No. 877 is GRANTED.
5. ECF No. 878 is GRANTED.
6. ECF No. 879 is GRANTED.
7. ECF No. 889 is GRANTED.
8. ECF No. 890 is GRANTED.
20
21
22
23
Dated: April 8, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
11
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?