Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03227/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03227-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILICON LABORATORIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRESTA TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 216, 219, 221, 223, 231, 

233)

Before the court are six administrative motions to seal by Defendant Cresta Technology 

Corporation.

1

 In each of these motions, CrestaTech seeks to file under seal entire documents 

because, it claims, they contain confidential information. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a request 

to seal documents “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.”2 None of 

these motions comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5, and they are DENIED without prejudice.

3

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

See Docket Nos. 216, 219, 221, 223, 231, 233.

2 Also, the “unredacted version of the document” must indicate “by highlighting or other clear 

method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).

3 CrestaTech has filed another motion that seeks sealing of only certain portions of a document. 

See Docket No. 226. The court does not address that motion here.

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 236 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 1