Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-05488 EDL

ORDER REGARDING NETAPP’S

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL

NETAPP’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,632,012 AND

EXHIBIT THERETO; ORDER

REGARDING SEALING REQUESTS RE:

OPPOSITION AND EXHIBITS

RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO.

7,107,385

In connection with NetApp’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of NonInfringement of U.S. Patent No.5,632,012 and declaration in support thereof, NetApp filed an

administrative motion to file under seal the unredacted version of its Reply brief, as well as Exhibit

2 of the Walter Declaration in Support, on the basis that Sun had previously designated certain

information contained in these documents “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” See Dkt. No. 318. Sun did not

file any declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, lodge and serve a

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or withdraw the designation of confidentiality within

seven days as required by Local Rule 79-5(d). Sun is hereby Ordered to file an appropriate response

to NetApp’s administrative motion within seven days of the date of this Order, or the designated

information will be made part of the public record. 

In connection with Sun’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.

7,107,385, the parties have requested that various portions of NetApp’s Opposition and supporting

documents be filed under seal. See Dkt. No. 285, 331. The Court is unclear as to which portions of

these documents the parties currently contend should be filed under seal. The parties are hereby

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 358 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Ordered to meet and confer and submit a joint sealing request to the Court specifying which portions

of the Opposition and documents should be filed under seal under the “compelling reasons”

standard, as well as proposed redacted versions of these documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2010

__________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 358 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2