Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-69/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’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF; DIRECTIONS TO

DEFENDANTS

Before the Court is the Declaration of Keith P. Gray, filed April 27, 2007, offered by

plaintiff in support of defendants’ “Unopposed Administrative Motion Pursuant to Local

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b) to File Confidential Documents Under Seal,” filed April 20, 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 the following

documents: Defendants’ Opposition to Matshushita’s Notice of Motion and Motion for

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 790 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

1

A party has no basis to seek leave to file a document under seal merely because

some portion of the document references confidential matter. Rather, “[t]he request must

be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

2

Summary Judgment, Declaration of Dr. Robert G. Wedig, and Exhibits D, H, I, L, N, O, and

P to the Declaration of Charlie Y. Chou. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to file

under seal unredacted versions of said documents.

With respect to six of the above-referenced documents, however, specifically,

Exhibits D, H, I, L, N, and O to the Declaration of Charlie Y. Chou, plaintiff represents that

said exhibits include confidential material, but fails to identify the confidential portions

therein.1

 Accordingly, plaintiff is DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than May 7,

2007, a redacted version of said six documents, from which only the confidential

information has been deleted. If plaintiff fails to timely file a properly redacted version of

Exhibits D, H, I, L, N and/or O, the Court will direct the Clerk to file said document or

documents in the public record.

With respect to another of the above-referenced documents, specifically, the

Declaration of Dr. Robert G. Wedig, plaintiff has denied that page 7:27-8:1 and page 8:21-

23 contain confidential material. Accordingly, defendants are hereby DIRECTED to file in

the public record, no later than May 7, 2007, an amended version of said declaration in

which such passages are no longer deleted therefrom. If defendants fail to timely file such

version, the Court will strike from the record the two above-referenced passages.

 Finally, with respect to the additional document as to which defendants seek leave to

file under seal, specifically, Exhibit M to the Declaration of Charlie Y. Chou, the motion is

hereby DENIED, for the reason plaintiff has denied having designated the document as

confidential. (See Gray Decl. ¶ 2(d).) Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file in the

public record Exhibit M to the Declaration of Charlie Y. Chou.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 790 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2