SILICON GRAPHICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Filing 868

ORDER on Sealed Documents. The parties may have until 8/20/2015 to identify specific documents that should remain sealed and explain why they must remain sealed. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/30/2015. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.,
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff,
06-cv-611-bbc
v.
ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC and
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RICOH COMPANY, LTD.,
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff,
06-cv-462-bbc
v.
QUANTA COMPUTER, INC.
and QUANTA STORAGE, INC.
Defendants.
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TAURUS IP, LLP,
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff,
07-C-158-C
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA
INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.,

1

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMPANY, LLC and
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, INC.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - These cases have three things in common.

Each was related to alleged patent

infringement, each was closed several years ago and each has a court record that includes
several boxes of sealed filings. In accordance with court policy, the clerk of court sent the
full record in these cases to the federal records center for long-term storage. However, the
center has informed the court that it cannot accept cases with sealed filings.
Because all of these cases were closed years ago, it seems unlikely that they contain
information that is still confidential. Accordingly, it is the court’s intention to unseal the
files so that they can be stored at the federal records center.
If any of the parties object to this decision, they may have until August 20, 2015 to
raise those objections with the court. However, any objecting party must be prepared to
explain its specific objection as to each individual document that it believes must remain
sealed. In addition, the objecting party must show that the particular documents satisfies
the sealing standards articulated by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. E.g., City
of Greenville, Illinois v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2014);
GEA Grp. AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 419-20 (7th Cir. 2014); Goesel v. Boley

2

International (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013). If none of the parties respond
by August 20, I will unseal all of the filings in these cases.
Entered this 30th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3