Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants 

MEDIATEK, INC,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD., et al.

Counterclaim Defendants

 /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DEFERRING IN PART RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; ORDERING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE IN PUBLIC

RECORD PORTIONS OF TWO

EXHIBITS

Before the Court is the “Supplemental Declaration of Keith P. Gray in Support of

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.’s Unopposed

Motion for Administrative Relief to File Documents Under Seal,” filed April 18, 2007, as a

supplement to plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Administrative Relief to File Documents

Under Seal,” filed April 6, 2007.

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 730 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Walter G. Rudd is wholly duplicative of Exhibit 81 to

the Declaration of Tyler J. Woods. Plaintiff fails to explain why it needs to file duplicative

copies of the same document in support of its motion for summary judgment, particularly in

light of plaintiff’s having filed over 80 exhibits in support of such motion.

2

or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

Having reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Keith P. Gray, the Court finds

good cause exists to GRANT the motion in part, specifically, to the extent it pertains to the

eight documents identified below. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to file under

seal unredacted versions of the following eight documents:

1. Exhibit 16 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini;

2. Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini;

3. Exhibit 40 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini;

4. Exhibit 51 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini;

5. Declaration of Walter G. Rudd;

6. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Walter G. Rudd;

7. Exhibit 81 to the Declaration of Tyler J. Woods; and

8. Exhibit 82 to Declaration of Tyler J. Woods.

With respect to two of the above-referenced documents, however, specifically,

Exhibit B to the Declaration of Walter G. Rudd and Exhibit 81 to the Declaration of Tyler J.

Woods, plaintiff has failed to show the entirety of such documents is confidential.1

Specifically, plaintiff has failed to show why pages 1-13 of each such exhibit contain

confidential matter, given that pages 1-13 address only the declarant’s educational

background and employment history, his understanding of the applicable law, a discussion

of compact disc technology in general, and his understanding of terms in a publicly-filed

patent. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file in the public record, no later than

April 27, 2007, pages 1-13 of said exhibits. If plaintiff fails to timely file such nonconfidential matter, the Court will strike pages 1-13 from said exhibits.

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 730 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff has grouped these documents separately from the documents referenced in

paragraph 1.

3

To the extent plaintiff’s motion requests leave to file additional documents under

seal, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on said motion, as follows:

1. Plaintiff represents that it designated certain documents as confidential solely

because such documents contain matter designated as confidential by defendants,

specifically, plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Exhibits 1, 8, and 75 to the

Declaration of Aldo A. Badini. “A stipulation . . . will not suffice to allow the filing of

documents under seal.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on the

motion to file such documents under seal until after April 25, 2007, the date by which

defendants are required to submit a declaration establishing that such documents, either in

their entirety or in part, are sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

2. Plaintiff represents that Exhibits 2-5, 7, 11-15, 22, 25, 28-30, 32-38, 41-49, 52-53,

55, 57-62, 64, and 66-72 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini have been designated

confidential by defendants.2 The Court defers ruling on the motion to file such exhibits

under seal until after April 25, 2007, the date by which defendants are required to submit a

declaration establishing that such exhibits, either in their entirety or in part, are sealable. 

See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 730 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 3