Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02543-BLF 

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA'S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REDACT 

PORTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 209]

Currently before the Court is Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) unopposed motion to 

redact portions of the September 22, 2016 hearing transcript pursuant to the Court’s order. ECF 

209. Because Toshiba’s motion fails to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and Standing Order

re Civil Cases, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), a party seeking to file a document, or portions thereof, 

under seal must file an administrative motion to file under seal, in conformance with Civil L.R. 7-

11. The administrative motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration establishing that the 

document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable; (2) a proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material; (3) a redacted version of the document that 

is sought to be filed under seal1; and (4) an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed 

under seal, indicating, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 

have been omitted from the redacted version. Toshiba’s motion does not comply with Civil L.R. 

7-11, in that it does not set forth the reasons supporting the motion.2 Additionally, Toshiba’s 

 

1 Because Toshiba seeks to redact portions of a hearing transcript, which are properly filed by the 

court reporter upon the Court’s order, Toshiba need not file a redacted version of the transcript. 

2

The motion also fails to indicate why the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored, in violation 

of Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 210 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion is not accompanied by a declaration or an unredacted version of the transcript with 

highlighting to indicate the portions of the document to be redacted, which may be filed under 

seal. 

Toshiba’s motion also violates this Court’s Standing Order re Civil Cases, which prohibits 

incorporation by reference. See Standing Order re Civil Cases, subsection E.2 (“All factual and 

legal bases for a party’s position must be presented in the briefs submitted in connection with the 

particular motion before the Court.”); Mot. 2, ECF 209 (“Toshiba submits that for the same 

reasons cited in Toshiba’s Motion to Close the Courtroom, the proposed redactions to the 

transcript are sealable.”).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Toshiba’s motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE to it refiling 

the motion in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules and Standing Order re Civil Cases. 

Toshiba shall file an administrative motion to redact the transcript on or before October 21, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 210 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2