Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-164/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART FAIRCHILD’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

CERTAIN EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF 

ITS MOTION TO STAY; DIRECTIONS 

TO FAIRCHILD

Re: Dkt. No. 1007

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed November 11, 

2016, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor 

Corporation, and Fairchild Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”), pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 79-5, by which Fairchild seeks permission to file under seal portions of Exhibits F 

and G to the Declaration of Christina A. Ondrick filed in support of “Fairchild’s Motion to 

Stay.” 

According to Fairchild, “all or part of these documents contains information

designated by both parties as ‘Confidential’ or ‘Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only’ pursuant to the Protective Order in this case (Dkt. 122) or reference such 

confidential material.” (See Mot. at 1:14-15.) As required by the Local Rules of this

district, Fairchild and plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) have 

submitted declarations in support of Fairchild’s administrative motion. See Civil L. R. 79-

5(d) (providing motion to file document under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a] 

declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions 

thereof, are sealable”); Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks to file under 

seal material designated confidential by another party, designating party must file, within 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 1027 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

four days, “a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is 

sealable”).

Having read and considered the administrative motion and the parties’ respective

declarations, the Court rules as follows.

Although the exhibits contain redacted lines or portions thereof, neither party has 

identified which of the two parties has designated such material confidential. As to 

Exhibit F, however, Power Integrations, in its supporting declaration, specifies the 

redacted lines it asserts contain its business information, specifically, the lines redacted 

on pages 58 and 61, and explains the confidential nature of such material. (See Headley 

Decl., filed Nov. 15, 2016, ¶ 3).1 By contrast, Fairchild states only: “Exhibits F and G 

reference confidential business information of both parties.” (See Ondrick Decl., filed 

Nov. 11, 2016, ¶ 4.) Given the lack of further elaboration, such statement is insufficient 

to either identify or substantiate the need for redaction of the portions of either exhibit that 

Fairchild claims contain its confidential information.

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks to file under seal the redacted lines on 

pages 58 and 61 of Exhibit F, the motion is hereby GRANTED. In all other respects, the 

motion is hereby DENIED and Fairchild is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, 

no later than February 20, 2017, a redacted version of Exhibit F, in which only the abovereferenced lines are redacted, and an unredacted version of Exhibit G. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1 Power Integrations does not assert in its declaration that any portion of Exhibit G 

contains its confidential business information and requests the administrative motion be 

granted “with respect to the redacted portions of Exhibit F.” (See Headley Decl. at 2:20-

21). 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 1027 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2