Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD., et al.,

Defendant /

No. 05-4374 MMC 

(consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

DEFERRING IN PART RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is plaintiff’s administrative motion, filed April 17, 2007, to file under

seal a letter dated April 17, 2007, as well as nine exhibits attached to the Declaration of

Kenneth E. Krosin, which plaintiff offers in connection with said letter. Plaintiff represents

that material referenced in the letter and in the exhibits has been designated by defendants

as confidential.

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

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

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 257 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

These examples are illustrative, and are not intended as an exhaustive listing of the

material that plainly is not confidential.

2

proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Id.

Here, the designating parties, defendants, did not file a responsive declaration within

the time provided under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). On May 4, 2007, however, defendants

filed a Supplemental Declaration of Judith S. H. Hom, which defendants offered in support

of a different administrative motion, and in which the declarant, in a footnote, asserts that

plaintiff’s letter dated April 17, 2007, as well as Exhibits A-H to the Declaration of Kenneth

E. Krosin are confidential. (See Supp. Hom Decl. at 3:22-25.) Notwithstanding defendants’

failure to explain the untimely filing of such declaration to the extent it is intended to support

plaintiff’s April 17, 2007 administrative motion, the Court will exercise its discretion to

consider such declaration for such purpose, and rules as follows.

First, because defendants do not claim Exhibit I to the Declaration of Kenneth E.

Krosin is confidential, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED to the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file

said exhibit under seal. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than May

14, 2007, Exhibit I in the public record. If plaintiff fails to timely comply, the Court will strike

such exhibit.

As to the remaining documents plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal, defendants’

showing is deficient. “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., in other words, a party cannot file an

entire document under seal merely because some portion therein is, or may be,

confidential. Here, it is clear from a review of the subject documents that substantial

portions thereof cannot be characterized as confidential. (See, e.g., Krosin Decl. Ex. A

(discussing positions deponent held with defendants); id. Ex. H ¶¶ 1-11 (setting forth

objections to interrogatories, essentially in boilerplate form without any discussion of

defendants’ business).1

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 257 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Defendants are hereby afforded leave to file, no later than May 14, 2007, a

supplemental declaration setting forth the specific portions of the subject documents that

are confidential and, as to each such portion, setting forth the reason(s) why such portion is

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the

law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). Accordingly, the Court DEFERS, until May 14, 2007, ruling on

plaintiff’s motion, to the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal plaintiff’s letter dated

April 17, 2007 and Exhibits A-H to the Declaration of Kenneth E. Krosin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 257 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3