Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-92/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. 05-3148 MMC 

ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFERRED

PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO FILE

DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

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

4, 2007, specifically, the request to file under seal certain documents designated as

confidential by defendants and/or by third-parties.

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

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

for a 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

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1091 Filed 05/16/07 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

1

Plaintiff’s motion, to the extent it seeks leave to file under seal documents

assertedly designated as confidential by third-parties, remains under submission, because

the time for the third-parties to file a responsive declaration has not yet passed. Further, it

is unclear if the third-parties are on notice of plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is reminded of the

Court’s order of May 8, 2007, requiring plaintiff to file, no later than May 11, 2007, proof of

service of the instant motion on the designating third-parties and a supplemental

declaration setting forth the identity of the designating third-parties; to date, plaintiff has not

filed either document nor filed a request for an extension of time to do so.

2

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.

To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal nine exhibits that defendants

have designated as confidential, and one exhibit that plaintiff has designated as confidential

because it contains matter designated by defendants as confidential, the motion is DENIED

because defendants have not filed a responsive declaration within the time provided under

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s administrative motion is, to such extent, hereby DENIED, and

the Clerk of the Court is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record the following

documents:

1. Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to the Declaration of Aldo A. Badini in Support

of Matsushita’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; and

2. Exhibits 20 and 24 to the Declaration of Tyler J. Woods in Support of

Matsushita’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1091 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2