Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-41/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

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-5235 MMC

ORDER RE: PARTIES’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Before the Court are four administrative motions to file under seal, three filed by

plaintiff and one by defendant, by which motions the parties seek, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5(d), to file under seal numerous documents offered in support of their respective

motions for summary judgment and to exclude testimony. Each motion to seal is

accompanied by a declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), and each party has

filed a responsive declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

Defendants, in their declarations, assert, without further elaboration, that the

material sought to be sealed “has been designated as ‘highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes

only’”; is “commercially valuable”; “regard[s] . . . design and functionality”; “contains highly

confidential sales information”; “contains highly confidential manufacturing information”

and/or “would potentially cause irreparable harm.” (See generally Ondrick Decls.) Plaintiff,

in its declarations, asserts, likewise in conclusory manner, that it “similarly desires to

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 273 Filed 10/08/13 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

maintain the confidentiality of” such information, and that the information contained therein

is “commercially valuable to [plaintiff] and dissemination would potentially cause irreparable

harm to [plaintiff].” (See generally Headley Decls.)

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records

and documents accompanying dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific fact[s].” See id. at 1178 (internal

quotation and citation omitted); see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., — F.3d —, 107

U.S.P.Q.2d 2048 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing appropriate where companies “filed

declarations from employees” that “explained the measures the two companies take to

keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the harm they would

suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”). Indeed, such

showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously

filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Here, the reasons

articulated by the parties lack the requisite factual support.

Accordingly, both defendant and plaintiff are hereby DIRECTED to file in support of

their respective administrative motions, no later than October 15, 2013, one or more

supplemental declarations setting forth the specific facts on which they respectively rely to

show whatever compelling reasons exist for the relief requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 273 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2