Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972-37/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Plaintiff

 v.

DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-2972 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFERRED

PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE

UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS

SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DIRECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is the deferred portion of plaintiff VNUS Medical Technologies,

Inc.’s motion for administrative relief to file documents under seal, filed August 10, 2007,

specifically, plaintiff’s request to file under seal Exhibits 39, 42, and 45 to the Declaration of

Suong T. Nguyen in Support of VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary

Judgment. Having reviewed defendants’ submissions in response to plaintiff’s motion for

administrative relief, the Court rules as follows:

1. With respect to Exhibit 39, the motion is DENIED for the reason defendant

AngioDynamics, Inc. has withdrawn its prior designation of confidentiality.

2. With respect to Exhibit 42, the motion is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks to

file the following portions under seal: lines 4 to 22 on page 28, lines 13 to 25 on page 62,

and lines 1 to 8 on page 63. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED for the reason

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 327 Filed 09/06/07 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

defendants Diomed Holdings, Inc., and Diomed, Inc. (collectively, “Diomed”) do not contend

any other portion of Exhibit 42 is confidential.

3. With respect to Exhibit 45, the motion is DENIED for the reason Diomed has

failed to identify any portion of said exhibit that is properly sealable.

4. If plaintiff wishes the Court to consider Exhibits 39 and 45, plaintiff is hereby

DIRECTED to file such exhibits in the public record, no later than September 12, 2007. If

plaintiff wishes the Court to consider the portions of Exhibit 42 that are not confidential,

plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a redacted version of Exhibit 42, no later than September 12,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 327 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2