Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-51/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 OMNIBUS 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

PORTIONS OF MLC'S DAUBERT 

MOTION, EXHIBITS AND MOTION IN 

LIMINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 453-455

On April 23, 2019, MLC filed an “omnibus administrative motion for leave to file under seal 

portions of MLC’s Daubert motion, Declaration of Fabio Marino and Exhibits to Daubert motion 

and Motion in Limine.” Dkt. Nos. 453-455.1 MLC seeks to file portions of its Daubert motion 

regarding Micron’s damages expert Paul Meyer under seal, portions of the Marino declaration under 

seal, and Exhibits 1-14 entirely under seal.

The Court has reviewed the proposed under seal material and the declarations of Rebecca 

Horton and Michael Ellis in support of the administrative motion to seal. The administrative motion 

to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

 

1

 Although the title of the motion suggests that there is a separate motion in limine that is 

the subject of the administrative motion, it appears from the docket that there is not. In light of the 

numerous Daubert motions and motions in limine filed by both parties, which are usually 

accompanied by administrative motions to file under seal, the Court requests that the parties take 

care to frame the titles of their motions with accuracy so as to not cause confusion. 

Further, neither the chambers copy nor the electronically filed under seal version of the 

Marino Declaration contains highlighting of the proposed redactions. The Court evaluated the 

propriety of the proposed redactions by comparing the redacted version with the unredacted 

chambers copy. The Court once again reminds the parties to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 

with regard to the filing of administrative motions to file under seal, including the requirement that 

such motions be accompanied by chambers copies containing highlighting showing the proposed 

redactions. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 507 Filed 05/07/19 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

1. Exhibits 5 and 6 do not contain confidential information and therefore the motion to seal 

these documents is DENIED. MLC shall file these exhibits in the public record.

2. MLC’s proposed redactions to the Daubert motion are overbroad. While specific 

information that Mr. Meyer relied upon to formulate his opinions may be confidential 

(such as details about the licenses, including the specific royalty rates), general 

descriptions of Mr. Meyer’s methodology that do not include confidential information 

should not be filed under seal. For example, the proposed redaction in the Introduction 

of the motion at lines 19-24 does not contain confidential information, and indeed repeats 

unredacted information contained in the same paragraph about Mr. Meyer’s use of 

“units” instead of revenue and MLC’s assertion that “the comparable licenses [were] 

negotiated on the basis of an established royalty rate applied to expected revenue over a 

period of time.” See Introduction at lines 8-9, 13. For the same reasons, the proposed 

redaction at page 10, lines 11-23 is improper, as those sentences simply describe Mr. 

Meyer’s methodology without disclosing any underlying confidential information. 

These are just a few examples. MLC is directed to refile a more narrowly tailored 

administrative motion requesting to file under seal portions of the Daubert motion that 

only contain confidential information. Accordingly, the motion to file portions of the 

Daubert motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.

3. The Court GRANTS the remainder of the administrative motion, and thus the Marino 

declaration may be filed with the proposed redactions, and Exhibits 1-4 and 7-14 may be 

filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 507 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 2