Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04244/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04244-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS) 

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

Vincent K. Yip (No. 170665) 

vyip@agsk.com 

Terry D. Garnett (No. 151212) 

tgarnett@agsk.com 

Peter J. Wied (No. 198475) 

pwied@agsk.com 

Maxwell A. Fox (No. 200016) 

mfox@agsk.com 

David R. Shraga (No. 229098) 

dshraga@agsk.com 

The Water Garden 

1620 26th Street 

Fourth Floor, North Tower 

Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 

Telephone: 310-907-1000 

Facsimile: 310-907-2000 

Attorneys for Defendants 

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARP CORPORATION a.k.a. SHARP 

KABUSHIKI KAISHA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, AU 

OPTRONICS CORPORATION 

AMERICA, VIEWSONIC 

CORPORATION, BENQ 

CORPORATION, BENQ AMERICA, 

ENVISION PERIPHERALS INC. d/b/a 

AOC MONITORS, PROVIEW 

TECHNOLOGY, INC., SCEPTRE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ACER, INC., 

AND ACER AMERICA 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. C03-04244 MMC (JCS) 

DEFENDANTS’ MISCELLANEOUS 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Civil L.R. 7-

10; Civil L.R. 79-5) AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

Date:

Time: 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 524 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 4
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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 

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS)

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 22, 2005, plaintiff Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) filed its Memorandum in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement 

(“Opposition”). Sharp also concurrently filed a Miscellaneous Administrative Request to file 

under seal the unredacted version of Sharp’s Opposition and Tabs A through H to the Declaration 

of Joseph S. Presta (“Presta Decl.”) in support thereof, on the grounds that the unredacted 

versions of the above-referenced documents contain or disclose information that had been 

designated by Defendants as confidential (“Attorneys’ Eyes Only”). On May 2, 2005 the Court 

ordered that the above-referenced documents be filed in the public record on the grounds that the 

Defendants, as designating party, did not file a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(d) establishing that the designated information is sealable (or lodge and serve a 

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order). However, Sharp’s Opposition was largely based on 

moving papers and exhibits that Defendants had already established were confidential. 

Defendants now file this MAR to redress this misunderstanding, request that the 

unredacted version of Sharp’s Opposition and Tabs A through H to the Presta Decl. be filed under 

seal as was requested in Sharp’s own MAR, and provide a supporting declaration to confirm that 

the designated information is sealable. 

II. ARGUMENT

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on April 8, 2005.

Along with that motion Defendants also filed an MAR requesting they be allowed to file an 

unredacted version of the motion under seal, as well as certain exhibits to the Declaration of 

David R. Shraga that was filed in support thereof, most notable among which was the 

infringement report of Sharp’s designated expert Dr. Aris K. Silzars, and certain exhibits attached 

thereto. In their MAR and the supporting Shraga Declaration, Defendants established that 

portions of their motion and certain supporting exhibits attached to the Shraga Declaration 

contained references to confidential and proprietary information. The parties have agreed that 

information of this nature shall be treated as confidential pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order entered in this case on August 9, 2004. The Court granted Defendants’ MAR on 

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 524 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 4
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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

 3 

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS)

April 11, 2005. 

Sharp then filed its Opposition, which was largely based on the confidential 

information already addressed in Defendants’ motion, such as the confidential report of Dr. 

Silzars.1 However, Sharp’s MAR did not explain that what the Opposition was based on, directly 

or indirectly, had already been established by declaration as confidential by Defendants in their 

original MAR. This absence of explanation has apparently led to the conclusion that the 

designated information is not sealable. Defendants therefore are now filing this MAR and the 

supporting Declaration of Peter J. Wied to remove any doubt and establish that the unredacted 

version of Sharp’s Opposition and Tabs A through F of the Presta Declaration contain 

confidential information and are sealable. 

Under Local Rule 79-5, a document may only be filed under seal upon a showing 

of good cause. The unredacted version of Sharp’s Opposition and Exhibits A through F to the 

Presta Declaration contain information that is highly confidential and proprietary to Defendants.

The release of such information to the public would cause harm to Defendants. See Declaration 

of Peter J. Wied in Support of Defendants’ MAR, ¶ 2. The parties have previously agreed to treat 

the parties’ confidential and proprietary information under the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provisions 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. Accordingly, good cause exists to seal references to 

information that is confidential and proprietary to Defendants. In compliance with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Defendants 

wish to redact from the public version of Sharp’s Opposition and the Presta Declaration only 

those portions that contain the confidential material. 

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request an order from the Court to allow 

filing under seal of the unredacted versions of Sharp’s Opposition and Tabs A through F of the 

Presta Declaration. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an 

1

 The Presta Decl. also attached the invalidity report of Defendants’ expert Webster Howard and 

his deposition testimony related thereto (Tabs G and H), neither of which have been designated as 

confidential by Defendants.

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 524 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 4
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

STEIN & 

KAHAN LLP

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

 4 

Defendants’ Misc. Admin. Request 

To File Documents Under Seal 

Case No. C03-04244 MMC (JCS)

order allowing the filing under seal of the unredacted version of Sharp’s Opposition and Tabs A 

through F of the Presta Declaration. 

DATED: May 3, 2005 ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP 

By _/s/ Peter J. Wied___________________________

Peter J. Wied 

Attorneys for Defendant

AU Optronics Corporation, et al. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:__________________ ____________________________________ 

 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney, 

United States District Judget 

May 4, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney

Case 3:03-cv-04244-MMC Document 524 Filed 05/04/05 Page 4 of 4