Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-37/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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MICRON'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 360

Micron has filed an administrative motion to file under seal its motion for a preliminary 

injunction. Dkt. No. 360. Micron seeks to file the motion with numerous redactions, and a number 

of exhibits entirely under seal. The Court has reviewed the proposed under seal material and finds 

that Micron’s proposed redactions are overbroad. While the terms of the NDA itself are 

confidential, the existence of the NDA is not. As such, the Court finds it appropriate to file the 

agreement (and different versions of the agreement) under seal (Exhibits 1, 3, and 5). In addition, 

the Court finds that the parties’ communications regarding and pursuant to the NDA may be filed 

under seal (Exhibits 2 and 4). 

However, Micron’s request to file the balance of the material identified in the administrative 

motion is overbroad. Micron’s proposed redactions to the motion itself are not narrowly tailored. 

For example, it is unnecessary to redact references to “the agreement,” “breaching the parties’ 

nondisclosure agreement,” “licensing discussions” or “contractual obligations” because there is 

nothing confidential about those words, and indeed the fact that the parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement in 2013 to negotiate a potential license, and that Micron alleges that MLC has 

breached that agreement, are matters already in the public record. See e.g., Dkt. No. 244. Similarly, 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 383 Filed 03/27/19 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

Micron’s request to file Exhibits 6-10 entirely under seal is inappropriate, as these exhibits contain 

a considerable amount of material that is not confidential (such as discovery requests and boilerplate 

objections). These are just a few examples, and there are many more instances of non-confidential 

material in the motion and Exhibits 6-10 that Micron seeks to file under seal.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Micron’s administrative motion to file under seal Exhibits 

1-5 to the motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court DENIES the balance of the motion, 

without prejudice to Micron filing another administrative motion that is much more narrowly 

tailored such that only truly confidential information (such as quotes from or summaries of the 

NDA) is sought to be filed under seal. Micron shall file the renewed administrative motion no later 

than March 29, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 383 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 2