Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-52/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 CO.,LTD., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RESPONSIVE

DECLARATION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

Before the Court are two administrative motions to file documents under seal, filed

by defendants on June 15, 2007 and June 22, 2007, respectively.

In their June 15, 2007 motion, defendants have adequately established that the

portions of the documents designated as confidential by defendants are sealable. Plaintiff,

however, has failed to file a responsive declaration establishing the confidentiality of the

documents defendants seek to file under seal based on plaintiff’s designations. See Civil

L.R. 79-5(d) (providing, where party seeks leave to file under seal document designated as

confidential by another, designating party must file responsive declaration within five days

“establishing that the designated information is sealable”). Under such circumstances, the

Court ordinarily would deny defendants’ motion to the extent defendants seek leave to file

under seal documents designated as confidential by plaintiff. See id. (“If the designating

party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 364 Filed 07/02/07 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

1

If, in the future, plaintiff wishes to preclude the filing of its documents in the public

record, plaintiff must comply with Local Rule 79-5. No further reminder will be provided.

2

or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.”). Plaintiff has, however,

endeavored to explain why at least some of the documents referenced in defendants’ June

15, 2007 motion to seal are, in fact, confidential, albeit in connection with a different motion

to seal, specifically, plaintiff’s June 15, 2007 motion to file documents under seal offered in

support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., Supp. Julian Decl., filed

June 27, 2007, ¶ 15.) Under such circumstances, it appears plaintiff has overlooked its

obligation to file a declaration in response to defendants’ motion.

In their June 22, 2007 motion, defendants seek only to file under seal portions of one

document designated as confidential by plaintiff. Again, plaintiff has failed to file a

responsive declaration, and, as stated above, ordinarily the Court would deny the motion. 

Whether such omission was intentional is unclear, however.

Accordingly, as to each document, or portion thereof, identified in the two abovereferenced motions to seal as having been designated as confidential by plaintiff, plaintiff is

hereby afforded leave to file, no later than July 6, 2007, a responsive declaration.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 364 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2