Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01531/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01531-14/pdf.json

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

---

1 

 NO. C 09‐01531 RS

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS 

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 

*E-Filed 08/05/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

APPLE, INC., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-01531 RS 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS 

 In conjunction with Apple’s motion to dismiss Elan’s counterclaim for inequitable conduct, 

the parties each filed sealing motions regarding certain materials they submitted. Elan’s motion 

(Dkt. No. 137) sought to seal Exhibits B, D, E, M, R, S, T, and U, to the Declaration of Sean P. 

DeBruine (Dkt. No. 136) submitted in support of Elan’s opposition, all of which are materials that 

had been designated by Apple as “confidential,” or “highly confidential” under the protective order 

governing this action. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Apple has submitted a declaration that 

adequately establishes grounds for filing Exhibits B, D, E, T, and U under seal. Apple has 

withdrawn the confidentiality designations for Exhibits M, R, and S. Accordingly, the sealing 

motion is GRANTED as to exhibits B, D, E, T, and U and DENIED as to Exhibits M, R, and S. 

 Elan also filed its opposition brief in a redacted version, omitting from the public record 

certain quotations from deposition testimony that apparently had been designated by Apple as 

Case 5:09-cv-01531-RS Document 157 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

 NO. C 09‐01531 RS

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS 

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 

confidential. Neither Elan’s sealing motion, nor Apple’s declaration in response addressed those 

redactions. The Court has reviewed the redactions. Even assuming the depositions cited otherwise 

contained information subject to protection, the particular excerpts quoted in Elan’s brief do not 

warrant sealing. Accordingly, Elan shall re-file its opposition brief in unredacted form. 

 Apple’s sealing motion (Docket No. 145) seeks sealing of Exhibits A and B to the 

Declaration of Sonal N. Mehta lodged in support of Apple’s reply brief, as well as paragraph 4 of 

that declaration. Apple’s motion and Elan’s responsive declaration adequately establish grounds for 

sealing those materials. Accordingly, Apple’s sealing motion is GRANTED. Apple shall efile the 

Mehta declaration with paragraph 4 and Exhibits A and B redacted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/05/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-01531-RS Document 157 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2