Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,LTD., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING

IN PART, AND DEFERRING RULING ON

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL OPPOSITION AND

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT

THEREOF; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK;

DIRECTION TO DEFENDANTS;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal,

filed June 30, 2007, by which plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal unredacted versions of

its opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and portions of a supporting

declaration. Having reviewed the motion and the declarations offered in support thereof,

the Court rules as follows:

1. The motion is hereby GRANTED in part, and the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to

file under seal unredacted versions of the following three documents:

a. Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Brief in Opposition to Seoul’s Motions for

Summary Judgment;

b. Corrected Declaration of Michael J. Song in Support of Plaintiff Nichia

Corporation’s Brief in Opposition to Seoul’s Claim Construction and Motion for Summary

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 459 Filed 07/25/07 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

Judgment; Confidential Exhibits Thereto (Set One); and

c. Corrected Declaration of Michael J. Song in Support of Plaintiff Nichia

Corporation’s Brief in Opposition to Seoul’s Claim Construction and Motion for Summary

Judgment; Confidential Exhibits Thereto (Set Two).

2. Defendants assert that Exhibit 13 to the above-described Song Declaration is

confidential, (see Potter Decl., filed July 5, 2007, ¶ 11.A), but also assert that they have

withdrawn their prior designation that Exhibit 13 is confidential, (see id. ¶ 12). It would

appear that one of defendants’ two references to “Exhibit 13” was intended to be a

reference to Exhibit 14. The Court hereby DIRECTS defendants to file a supplemental

declaration, no later than July 30, 2007, to clarify the status of Exhibits 13 and 14. The

Court hereby DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s motion, to the extent it pertains to Exhibits 13

and 14, until July 30, 2007.

2. Defendants have designated only portions of Exhibits 31, 32, 57, 60, 69, 103, and

115 to the above-described Song Declaration as confidential, (see id. ¶¶ 4-8, Exs. A-D),

have withdraw their prior designation of confidentiality as to portions of Exhibits 69, 103,

and 115, (see id. ¶ 13), and have withdrawn their prior designation of confidentiality as to

the entirety of Exhibits 10, 13, 22, and 23, (see id. ¶ 12). Further, although plaintiff seeks

leave to file Exhibit 21 under seal, neither plaintiff nor defendants have asserted any basis

to file under seal said exhibit, either in part or in its entirety. Accordingly, the motion is

hereby DENIED as to such exhibits or portions thereof, and plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED

to file in the public record, no later than July 30, 2007, redacted versions of Exhibits 31, 32,

57, 60, 69, 103, and 115 and the entirety of Exhibits 10, 13, 21, 22, and 23. If plaintiff fails

to timely file such exhibits in the public record, the Court will not consider them in ruling on

defendants’ motion for claim construction and for summary judgment.

3. Plaintiff has adequately shown that certain lengthy exhibits, specifically, Exhibits

24, 40, 43, and 58, “include” information that is confidential. (See Supp. Julian Decl., filed

July 9, 2007, ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff has failed to show the entirety of any of said exhibits is

confidential, and portions thereof plainly are not, (see, e.g., Song Decl. Ex. 24 at 201-03

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 459 Filed 07/25/07 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

These examples are illustrative only.

3

(witness discussing how a hypothetical product could be designed); id. Ex. 40 at 55

(witness testifying as to what he observed at trade show); id. Ex. 43 at 10:15-21 (witness

identifying title of his position with employer); id. Ex. 58 at 5-7 (expert generally discussing

“LED” products).1

 A party may not designate an entire document as confidential on the

ground that the document “includes” some confidential information. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a)

(providing request to file document under seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing

only of sealable material”). Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED to the extent plaintiff

seeks to leave to file under seal the entirety of Exhibits 24, 40, 43, and 58, and plaintiff is

hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than July 30, 2007, redacted

versions of said exhibits. If plaintiff fails to timely file such redacted versions in the public

record, the Court will not consider them in ruling on defendants’ motion for claim

construction and for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 459 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 3