Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972-40/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

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Plaintiff

 v.

DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-2972 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING

IN PART, AND DEFERRING IN PART

RULING ON DIOMED’S MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO DIOMED; DIRECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is defendants Diomed Holdings, Inc. and Diomed, Inc.’s

(collectively, “Diomed”) motion for administrative relief to file documents under seal, filed

August 24, 2007. Having reviewed the Declaration of Brian Farley, filed August 30, 2007

on behalf of plaintiff VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc. (“VNUS”), the Court rules as follows:

1. Diomed’s motion is hereby GRANTED in part, specifically, as to the following

documents that VNUS has shown contain material properly filed under seal:

a. Diomed’s Opposition to VNUS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Patent

Infringement; and

b. Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 23, 24 to the Declaration of Charles T.

Steenburg in Opposition to VNUS’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement.

//

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 331 Filed 09/07/07 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

2

2. With respect to Diomed’s Opposition, only portions of pages 5, 7, and 23 are, for

the reasons stated by VNUS, properly filed under seal. Accordingly, Diomed’s motion is

hereby DENIED to the extent Diomed seeks to file other portions of said document under

seal. If Diomed wishes the Court to consider the entirety of its opposition, Diomed is

DIRECTED to file in the public record all pages of said document, other than the portions of

pages 5, 7, and 23 identified by VNUS as confidential, no later than September 12, 2007.

3. With respect to Exhibit 6 to the Steenburg Declaration, only pages 68 and 131

are, for the reasons stated by VNUS, properly filed under seal. Accordingly, Diomed’s

motion is hereby DENIED to the extent Diomed seeks to file other pages of said exhibit

under seal. If Diomed wishes the Court to consider the entirety of Exhibit 6, Diomed is

DIRECTED to file in the public record all pages of Exhibit 6, other than pages 68 and 131,

no later than September 12, 2007.

4. With respect to Exhibit 24 to the Steenburg Declaration, only ¶ 6.2 on page 2 is,

for the reasons stated by VNUS, properly filed under seal. Accordingly, Diomed’s motion is

hereby DENIED to the extent Diomed seeks to file other portions of said exhibit under seal. 

If Diomed wishes the Court to consider the entirety of Exhibit 24, Diomed is DIRECTED to

file in the public record all pages of Exhibit 24, other than ¶ 6.2 on page 2, no later than

September 12, 2007.

5. With respect to Exhibits 4 and 18 to the Steenburg Declaration, no party has

asserted, let alone shown, that either such exhibit is properly filed under seal. Accordingly,

Diomed’s motion is hereby DENIED to the extent Diomed seeks to file said exhibits under

seal. If Diomed wishes the Court to consider Exhibits 4 and 18, Diomed is DIRECTED to

file them in the public record no later than September 12, 2007.

6. With respect to Exhibit 8 to the Steenburg Declaration, VNUS asserts that some

portions thereof are properly filed under seal. VNUS, however, fails to identify the portions

it asserts contain sealable material. Moreover, no such portion is readily apparent, and

substantial portions of the exhibit clearly are not properly filed under seal. (See, e.g.,

Steenburg Decl. Ex. 8 at 20:11-25 (discussing witness’s job title and identification of

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 331 Filed 09/07/07 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 1

This example is intended to be illustrative only.

3

individual to whom witness reported).1 “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. Rather than

directing Diomed to file Exhibit 8 in the public record, however, the Court hereby DEFERS

ruling on Diomed’s motion as it pertains to Exhibit 8 in order to afford VNUS the opportunity

to file, no later than September 12, 2007, a supplemental declaration identifying, with

specificity, the portions of Exhibit 8 that assertedly are privileged, protectable as a trade

secret, or otherwise entitled to be filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 331 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 3