Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02133/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02133-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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 

________________________________________________________________________________

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NO.

560 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. C 01-4925 SBA (JCS), RELATED W/CASE NO. C 01-02133 SBA (JCS)

Robert B. Morrill (SBN 35488) 

Matthew T. Powers (SBN 124493) 

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP 

555 California Street, Suite 5000 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 772-1200 

Facsimile: (415) 397-4621 

R. Terrance Rader (Pro Hac Vice) 

David T. Nikaido (Pro Hac Vice) 

RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC 

39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 140 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

Telephone: (248) 594-0600 

Facsimile: (248) 594-0610 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MITSUBISHI MATERIALS SILICON 

CORPORATION, a corporation of Japan; 

MITSUBISHI SILICON AMERICA 

CORPORATION, a California corporation; 

SUMITOMO MITSUBISHI SILICON 

CORPORATION, aka SUMCO, a corporation 

of Japan; SUMCO USA CORPORATION, aka 

SUMCO USA, a Delaware Corporation; and 

SUMCO USA SALES CORPORATION, aka 

SUMCO USA SALES, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C 01-4925 SBA (JCS) 

Related w/Case No. C 05-02133 SBA (JCS) 

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NO. 560; AND 

ORDER 

Date: None 

Time: None 

Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor 

Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 151 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NO.

560 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. C 01-4925 SBA (JCS), RELATED W/CASE NO. C 01-02133 SBA (JCS)

Defendants, through their counsel, hereby request the Court to grant this administrative 

request for additional time to respond to Docket No. 560, which is MEMC’s Administrative Request 

to File Documents Under Seal. 

As the Court knows, the parties have submitted voluminous briefs, declarations and exhibits 

and have filed a number of administrative requests to seal certain documents. On December 8, 2005, 

MEMC submitted an administrative request which designated 79 exhibits under seal and two entire 

briefs under seal, claiming that it is necessary and appropriate to file these documents under seal in 

“that reference is made throughout the motion to information and documents designated by 

Defendants” as confidential. MEMC also claimed it would not be practical to “remove the 

confidential information or exhibits from the motion or declarations and make it meaningful.” 

Unfortunately the exhibits and briefs submitted pursuant to Docket No. 560 are extremely 

voluminous, and actually in many cases are documents designated confidential by MEMC, not by 

defendants. Defendants are also missing several exhibits from the set of documents designated 

confidential by MEMC – these documents were provided on a CD, not in paper form, which has 

been the consistent practice in this case. Counsel for defendants have diligently attempted to 

respond to Docket 560 but respectfully request that more time is required to comply. On December 

21, 2005, I attempted to contact Duane Mathieowetz to determine if he would agree to an extension 

of time but could not reach him. Defendants simply request additional time to review the documents 

to determine whether any confidential information should be placed in the public record, and to 

determine whether MEMC and not Defendants should make determinations about what documents it 

designated confidential should remain confidential. Because of the upcoming holidays and 

additional time constraints, defendants request that they be permitted to submit an appropriate 

response to Docket 560 no later than January 6, 2006. The only issue presented by defendants’ 

response is whether the voluminous documents filed under seal by MEMC should be filed under seal 

or ultimately be placed in the public file. For this reason, defendants respectfully request additional 

time to submit their response. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 151 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NO.

560 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. C 01-4925 SBA (JCS), RELATED W/CASE NO. C 01-02133 SBA (JCS) 2 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Matthew T. Powers 

Dated: December 21, 2005 

Edward V. Anderson 

Robert B. Morrill 

Matthew T. Powers 

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP 

R. Terrance Rader (Pro Hac Vice) 

David T. Nikaido (Pro Hac Vice) 

RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 151 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NO.

560 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. C 01-4925 SBA (JCS), RELATED W/CASE NO. C 01-02133 SBA (JCS) 3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, the Court ORDERS that defendants are to submit an 

appropriate response to Docket No. 560 no later than January 6, 2006. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 1/3/06 ____________________________ 

 Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong 

 United States District Judge 

 

SF1 1425242v.1 

Case 4:05-cv-02133-SBA Document 151 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4