Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972-57/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., DIOMED, INC.,

ANGIODYNAMICS, INC., and VASCULAR

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants /

No. 05-2972 MMC 

ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATED

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

(DOCKET # 397)

Before the Court is the “Joint Stipulated Motion for Administrative Relief to File

Documents Under Seal,” filed October 1, 2007, by which plaintiff seeks leave to file certain

of its motions in limine and supporting declarations under seal, in light of defendants’

having previously designated the matter disclosed therein as confidential.

Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any

material designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion

for a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). “Within five days thereafter, the designating

party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing

order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” Id. “If the designating party

does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 568 Filed 10/23/07 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

proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Id.

Here, the designating parties, defendants, have not filed a responsive declaration

within the time provided under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Accordingly, the administrative motion is hereby DENIED, and the Clerk is

DIRECTED to file the following documents in the public record:

1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Brief in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude the

Thesis of Dr. Bone-Salat, Evidence of Inventive Activity in Spain, and Uncorroborated

Communications About Such Activity;

2. Declaration of Suong T. Nguyen in Support of Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and

Brief in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude the Thesis of Dr. Bone-Salat, Evidence of

Inventive Activity in Spain, and Uncorroborated Communications About Such Activity;

3. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Brief in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude

Expert Testimony of Drs. Laura B. Stamm and Brian W. Napper on Opinions Lacking an

Adequate Factual Basis; and

4. Declaration of Suong T. Nguyen in Support of Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and

Brief in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Drs. Laura B. Stamm

and Brian W. Napper on Opinions Lacking an Adequate Factual Basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 568 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 2