Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-48/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MLC'S OMNIBUS 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

PORTIONS OF MLC'S DAUBERT 

MOTIONS AND EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 422

MLC has filed an “omnibus” administrative motion for leave to file under seal portions of 

MLC’s Daubert motions and exhibits. Specifically, MLC seeks to file redacted versions of its 

“first,” “second” and “third” Daubert motions to exclude testimony by Micron’s expert Joseph 

McAlexander, and to file four exhibits in support of those motions entirely under seal. The exhibits 

consist of excerpts of Mr. McAlexander’s expert reports, excerpts of Mr. McAlexander’s deposition 

testimony, and excerpts of the expert report of Mr. Paul Meyer, Micron’s damages expert. 

MLC states that all of the material at issue has been designated by Micron as confidential. 

Horton Decl. ¶¶ 1-5 (Dkt. No. 422-1). Micron’s declaration in support of the administrative motion 

states that Exhibit 1 (Mr. McAlexander’s opening report) “does not contain Micron’s own 

confidential information” and that Micron only designated Exhibit 1 as “Highly Confidential--

Attorneys’ Eyes-Only” because “it contains excerpts of a deposition transcript that MLC designated 

as confidential.” Bright Decl. ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 438). Micron “takes no position” as to whether Exhibit 

1 should be filed under seal. Based upon this record, the administrative motion to file Exhibit 1 

under seal is DENIED.

Micron states that it designated the remaining exhibits as either “Highly Confidential--

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 480 Filed 05/02/19 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

Attorneys’ Eyes-Only” or “Highly Confidential—AEO and Source Code” because those documents 

(the expert reports and deposition testimony) either discussed confidential technical information 

about the accused products (Exhibits 2 and 3) or “sensitive business information” that Micron does 

not make available to the public (Exhibit 4). Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Micron does not identify with any specificity 

what “sensitive business information” is contained in Exhibit 4, nor does Micron explain why that 

exhibit should be filed under seal.

The proposed redactions in the Daubert motions relate to (1) Mr. McAlexander’s opinions 

about non-infringing alternatives and (2) the value of the ‘571 patent. The proposed redactions 

include such non-confidential words as “Accused Products,” “third-party products,” and “regarding 

the value of the ‘571 patent.” While it may be true that portions of the expert reports and Mr. 

McAlexander’s deposition testimony discuss source code and confidential technical information 

about the accused products there is nothing about any of the material in the motions themselves that 

is confidential. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part MLC’s administrative motion 

as follows: MLC shall file the Daubert motions in the public record. MLC shall also file Exhibits

1 and 4 in the public record. MLC shall file Exhibits 2 and 3 under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 480 Filed 05/02/19 Page 2 of 2