Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-152/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-09-5235 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT

D IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT

INTEREST; DIRECTIONS TO

DEFENDANTS

Before the Court is defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal, filed March 25, 2016,

by which defendants seek permission to seal material designated confidential by plaintiff,

specifically, Exhibit D to defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment

Interest. On March 29, 2016, plaintiff timely filed a responsive declaration in support of

sealing. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks to file under seal material

designated confidential by another party, designating party must file, within four days, “a

declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). Having read

and considered the administrative motion and responsive declaration, the Court rules as

follows.

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 972 Filed 05/16/16 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

2

According to plaintiff’s declaration, Exhibit D “contains confidential information from

prior litigation between the parties, including information concerning the parties’ work with

experts and other sealed filings in that case.” (See Headley Decl. at 2:15-17.) Contrary to

plaintiff’s assessment, however, it would appear that Exhibit D fails to reveal anything of a

confidential nature.

Accordingly, the administrative motion to seal is hereby DENIED, and defendants

are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than May 27, 2016, the entirety of Exhibit D in the

public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 972 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2