Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-68/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

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is the Declaration of Keith P. Gray, filed April 26, 2007 by plaintiff in

support of defendants’ “Supplemental Unopposed Administrative Motion Pursuant to Local

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b) to File Confidential Documents Under Seal,” filed April 19, 2007.

Having reviewed the Declaration of Keith P. Gray, the Court finds good cause exists

to GRANT the motion in part, specifically, to the extent it pertains to Exhibits 1, 3, 5-10, 12-

15, and 23-24 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon. Accordingly, the Clerk is

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 789 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 2
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

hereby DIRECTED to file under seal unredacted versions of said documents.

With respect to Exhibit 26 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon, the

motion is hereby DENIED, because plaintiff has withdrawn its designation that said exhibit

is confidential. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibit 26 in the public record.

Finally, with respect to Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C.

Cannon, the Court finds that neither party has shown good cause to file said exhibits under

seal. Defendants represent that they seek leave to file said documents under seal in light

of plaintiff’s having designated them as confidential. (See Chen Decl., filed April 19, 2007,

¶ 2(c).) Plaintiff, in response to defendants’ representation, states that such exhibits should

be filed under seal in light of defendants’ having designated the exhibits as confidential. 

(See Gray Decl., filed April 26, 2007, ¶¶¶ 3(a), 3(b), 3(c).) Irrespective of which party, if

any, has designated said documents as confidential, neither party has set forth a basis for

a finding of confidentiality, and the Court declines to conduct an independent review of the

subject documents to determine whether they might contain confidential matter. 

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED as it pertains to Exhibits 2 and 4 to the

Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file said

documents in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 789 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2