Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-61/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, DENYING

IN PART, AND DEFERRING IN PART

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’

SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE PROOF OF

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS ON THIRDPARTY IBM

Before the Court is 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.

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 729 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

2

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

Having reviewed the Declaration of Eugene Chen (“Chen”), filed April 19, 2007,

offered in support of the instant motion, 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. Declaration of Jeffrey Bokor;

2. Exhibits 6-8 to the Declaration of Jeffrey Bokor;

3. Defendants’ [Amended] Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment;

4. Declaration of Steven Wasserman;

5. Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Steven Wasserman;

6. Exhibits 16-17 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon

7. Exhibit 28 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon; and

8. Exhibit 31 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon.

With respect to Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Steven Wasserman, the Court

previously deferred ruling on the motion to seal in order to afford plaintiff the opportunity to

file, within the five-day period set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), a declaration establishing

that such exhibit, either in its entirety or in part, is sealable, (See Order, filed April 13, 2007,

at 4:12-16.) To date, plaintiff has failed to file the requisite declaration. Accordingly,

defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED, as it pertains to Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of

Steven Wasserman, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file said exhibit in the public record.

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

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

1. Because defendants, for the first time, represent that Exhibits 1-10, 12-15, 23, 24

and 26 to the Corrected Declaration of Brian C. Cannon have been designated confidential

by plaintiff, the Court defers ruling on the motion to file such exhibits under seal until after

April 26, 2007, the date by which plaintiff is 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).

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 729 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

1

As set forth in the Court’s order of April 13, 2007, “Exhibit 7 consists of excerpts

from a deposition, in which the deponent testifies, at least in part, as to material plainly not

confidential. (See, e.g., Wasserman Decl. Ex. 7 at 9:4-10:12 (providing testimony “at a

general level” as to nature of “MPEG” standard).” (See Order, filed April 13, 2007, at 4:22-

25.)

3

2. Defendants represent that Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Steven Wasserman has

been designated as confidential by a third-party, specifically, IBM. Defendants have failed,

however, to file proof of service of the instant motion on IBM. Accordingly, defendants are

hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than April 26, 2007, proof of service on IBM of

(1) defendants’ administrative motion and supporting declaration filed April 9, 2007, (2) the

Court’s order of April 13, 2007, (3) defendants’ supplemental motion and supporting

declaration filed April 19, 2007, and (4) the instant order. The Court will defer ruling on the

request to file such exhibit under seal, until five days after defendants have served the

above-referenced documents on IBM, to afford IBM the opportunity to establish why such

document, either in its entirety or in part, is sealable.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 729 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 3