Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02427/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

1

18cv2427-LAB (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and 

ERICCSON, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2427-LAB (BLM)

ORDER

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART HTC'S MOTION TO STRIKE 

DKT. 1 & 2

[ECF No. 4.]

and

(2) DENYING HTC’S MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[ECF No. 5]

On October 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to strike Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel Rule 45 Production and Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony from Qualcomm [ECF No. 1

(“Motion to Compel”)] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc [ECF No. 2]. ECF No. 4. The 

Court notes that the Motion to Compel is the initiating document for this case, and as such, it 

may not be stricken until there is a redacted or amended motion to replace it. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Motion to Compel. However, the Court grants 

Plaintiffs leave to file a renewed motion to strike after Plaintiffs have filed a redacted or amended 

Motion to Compel. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to strike their Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc 

[ECF No. 2] and DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to strike the Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc from the 

record.

Case 3:18-cv-02427-LAB-MSB Document 8 Filed 10/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2427-LAB (BLM)

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

Also on October 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to file the entire 

Motion to Compel, including supporting exhibits, under seal. ECF No. 5 (“Motion to File Under 

Seal”). In support, Plaintiffs state that Defendant Ericsson requested that exhibits 5 through 9 

of the Motion to Compel and “any discussion of them” be filed under seal because they are 

confidential. Id. at 2. The Court finds that the explanation regarding the confidential nature of 

exhibits 5 through 9 is insufficient to justify filing the entire document under seal and protected 

from public view. The Court reminds Plaintiffs to consult Chambers Rules for the undersigned 

magistrate judge, which states the following:

No document may be filed under seal, i.e., closed to inspection by the public 

except pursuant to a Court order that authorizes the sealing of the particular 

document, or portions of it. A sealing order may issue only upon a showing that 

the information is privileged or protectable under the law. The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material. To 

file a document under seal, the parties must comply with the procedures explained 

in Section II.j of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures 

Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California 

and Civil Local Rule 79.2. In addition, in accordance with Judge Major's 

preferences, a party must file a “public” version of any document that it seeks to 

file under seal. In the public version, the party may redact only that information 

that is deemed “Confidential.’” The party should file the redacted document(s) 

simultaneously with a joint motion or ex parte application requesting that the 

confidential portions of the document(s) be filed under seal and setting forth good 

cause for the request.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal. However, the Court grants 

Plaintiffs leave to file a renewed Motion to File Under Seal that corrects these deficiencies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/24/2018

Case 3:18-cv-02427-LAB-MSB Document 8 Filed 10/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2