Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-55/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 RE: MLC'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL, CHAMBERS COPIES, AND 

JUNE 12 CONFERENCE CALL RE: 

TRIAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 497

The Court has expended an inordinate amount of time processing the administrative motions 

to seal (and Dkt. No. 497 in particular) − time that would have been far better spent addressing the 

merits of the parties’ collective 21 Daubert motions and motions in limine that are scheduled for a 

hearing on June 6, 2019. The Court will not entertain any further administrative motions to 

seal in this case. 

MLC’s motion at Dkt. No. 497 requests to file numerous (16) documents either partially or 

fully under seal. Before addressing the specific requests, the Court notes the following. As reflected 

in the docket, on May 29, 2019, the Court issued a general clerk’s notice reminding the parties of 

this Court’s standing order regarding chambers copies, including specifically the requirements that 

chambers copies must be 3-hole punched and include ECF notations. Dkt. No. 568. On May 29, 

the Court also issued a clerk’s notice specifically about Dkt. No. 497 and MLC’s failure to provide 

the Court with a complete set of chambers copies. Dkt. No. 569. The initial set of chambers copies

for Dkt. No. 497 did not include, inter alia, an unredacted copy of MLC’s Opposition to Micron’s 

Daubert motion re Milani (Dkt. No. 497-4) nor did it include unredacted copies of Exhibits A and 

G-Q to the Marino declaration (Dkt. No. 497-11 to 497-22). 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 586 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 3
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

In response to that clerk’s notice, MLC provided the Court with a second set of chambers 

copies. However, the second set of chambers copies still did not include an unredacted copy of the 

opposition to the Milani Daubert motion or Exhibits A and G-Q. 

Thus, on May 30, the Court issued a second clerk’s notice regarding Dkt. No. 497. Dkt. No. 

575. MLC submitted the third set of chambers copies by noon on May 30. That set still did not 

include an unredacted copy of MLC’s opposition to the Milani Daubert motion, nor did MLC 

provide the Court with unredacted copies of Exhibits L or N1to the Marino declaration (Dkt. Nos. 

497-17 and 497-19). In addition, although the clerk’s notices addressed the need to include ECF 

numbers at the top of the documents, the second and third sets of chambers copies did not include 

any ECF notations, handwritten or otherwise, thus further complicating the task of determining what 

was missing. See generally Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(2) & this Court’s Standing Order.2

On May 30, 2019, the Court’s clerk orally informed MLC’s law firm that the third set of 

chambers copies was deficient. On the afternoon of May 30, MLC provided a fourth set of chambers 

copies, followed an hour later by a fifth set. These sets contain ECF notations, the missing 

opposition brief and Exhibits L and N.3 Between the third, fourth and fifth sets of chambers copies, 

the Court now has a complete set of Dkt. No. 497.

MLC’s repeated problems with providing the Court with a single, complete, 3-hole punched 

and ECF notated set of the exhibits for a subset of Daubert/motions in limine gives the Court serious 

concern about MLC’s ability to handle exhibits at trial. MLC must be fully prepared to address 

the efficient and smooth management of trial exhibits at the June 12 conference call regarding 

trial logistics. The trial teams that participate in the June 12 conference call must include at 

least one lawyer and at least one paralegal from both sides.

 

1

 The third set provided to the Court contains Exhibit tab “N,” however the exhibit that is 

attached is actually Exhibit O (Dkt. No. 497-20). 

2

 In addition, the parties’ briefs often refer to a document by the ECF number. Thus, if the 

chambers copies do not contain ECF numbers, the Court is required to constantly cross-reference 

the ECF citations in the briefs with the docket to determine which exhibit is cited. This is not a 

productive use of the Court’s time.

3

 However, the fourth set is inexplicably missing Exhibit G, and Exhibit P follows Exhibit 

Q. The fifth set helpfully contains all of the exhibits (including Exhibits B-F, which were not under 

seal), but only some of these exhibits are 3-hole punched. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 586 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

The Court rules on MLC’s motion to seal as follows:

MLC’s Opposition to Micron’s Daubert Motion re Milani: GRANTED as to the specific 

royalty rates from other licenses (e.g. Hynix) but DENIED as to statements of Milani’s opinions 

that are not confidential, such as his opinion that that a downward adjustment of 50% is warranted, 

or that an ultimate royalty rate of .375% is appropriate.

MLC’s Opposition to Micron’s Daubert Motion re Epstein: DENIED as to any references 

to Epstein’s opinion about a 1-3% royalty rate. The Court previously permitted the parties to file 

under seal specific royalty rates from other confidential license agreements. However, Mr. Epstein’s 

opinion about a reasonable royalty rate in this case, even though it may be based on those other 

agreements, is not in and of itself confidential.

Hinkley and Epstein declarations: GRANTED.

Exhibits A, I, J, K-Q: GRANTED.

Exhibits G and H: DENIED for the reasons previously stated by the Court regarding these 

same exhibits. These exhibits shall be publicly filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 586 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 3