Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-84/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants 

MEDIATEK, INC,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD., et al.

Counterclaim Defendants /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFERRED

PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court is the deferred portion of plaintiff’s administrative motion, filed April

20, 2007, specifically, plaintiff’s request to file under seal Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of

Bradley W. Dickinson in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and

Exhibit 114 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment.

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1049 Filed 05/10/07 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

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 proposed filing will

be made part of the public record.” Id.

In light of plaintiff’s representation that the subject exhibits have been designated

confidential by non-party Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), the Court, by order filed April

25, 2007, ordered plaintiff to serve Microsoft with a copy of the instant motion, the subject

exhibits, and the Court’s April 25, 2007 order, and stated it would defer ruling on the

request to seal said exhibits until after at least five days had elapsed from the date of

service on Microsoft.

On April 27, 2007, plaintiff served Microsoft with the above-referenced documents. 

To date, the designating party, Microsoft, has not filed a responsive declaration.

Accordingly, the deferred portion of plaintiff’s administrative motion is hereby

DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record:

(1) Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of Bradley W. Dickinson in Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Exhibit 114 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini in

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1049 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2