Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01935/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01935-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cingular Wireless LLC and Ericsson Inc.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Freedom Wireless, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1935-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal their Opposition

to Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc. (Doc. # 52) and Defendant's Motion to File

Under Seal its Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc. (Doc. # 56).

In the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. # 44), the Court, citing Kamakana v. City and

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), advised the parties that nothing in the

order was to be construed as automatically permitting the filing of any dispositive motion

under seal without first seeking leave of court and showing compelling reasons. In

determining whether compelling reasons have been shown, the Court must consider all

relevant factors, including "the public interest in understanding the judicial process and

whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous

or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Case 2:06-cv-01935-JAT Document 57 Filed 05/07/07 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 -

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430,

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (stating that compelling reasons

sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure exist when the documents might be

used for improper purposes). After considering all relevant factors, as raised by the parties,

"the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Id.; see also Kamakana,

447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citing with approval Foltz and Hagestad). 

In their motion, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal their opposition to Defendant's

motion to dismiss because the opposition includes one document and portions of three

depositions that Freedom Wireless, Inc. has designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the

Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, in its motion, Defendant seeks to file under seal its

reply to its motion to dismiss because the reply includes four documents and portions of three

depositions that have been designated as "Confidential." However, absent from both motions

is any information that would enable the Court to determine whether the compelling reasons

standard has been satisfied. In particular, the parties neither specifically identify the material

sought to be sealed nor advise the Court how the material might be improperly used for, inter

alia, scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. Accordingly, the

Court will deny both motions for leave to file under seal.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal their Opposition to

Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc. (Doc. # 52) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal its Reply

in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc. (Doc. # 56) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiffs' redacted

response (Doc. # 51) and Defendant's redacted reply (Doc. # 55) and, in their stead, file the

unredacted versions of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc.

and Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Freedom Wireless, Inc. lodged

Case 2:06-cv-01935-JAT Document 57 Filed 05/07/07 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

- 3 -

with the Clerk of Court. 

DATED this 7th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01935-JAT Document 57 Filed 05/07/07 Page 3 of 3