Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-121/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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON

FAIRCHILD’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER

SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION TO

EXCLUDE JONATHAN D. PUTNAM,

AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed September 4,

2015, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor

Corporation, and Fairchild Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”), pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5, by which Fairchild seeks permission to seal the entirety of Exhibits A - D to the

Declaration of Christina A. Ondrick (“Ondrick Declaration”) filed in support of “Fairchild’s

Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Jonathan D. Putnam,” as well as portions

of Fairchild’s motion that make reference to said exhibits. 

All of the material sought to be sealed has been designated confidential by both

parties, and, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules of this district,

Fairchild and plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) have submitted

respective declarations in support of Fairchild’s administrative motion. See Civil L. R. 79-

5(d) (providing motion to file document under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a]

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 748 Filed 10/20/15 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

See, e.g., Ondrick Decl. Ex. A (Putnam Report) at 40-52 (describing general

economic principles); Ex. B (Putnam Deposition) at 78-81 (discussing expert’s

understanding of applicable law); Ex. C (Malackowski Report) at 129-33 (discussing

Georgia-Pacific factors and other applicable law). The foregoing citations serve as

representative examples; such examples do not constitute the entirety of the redacted

material that the Court has found to be non-sealable. 

2

declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions

thereof, are sealable”); 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 the parties’ respective

declarations, the Court rules as follows.

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit D to the

Ondrick Declaration, the Court finds good cause has been shown, and the exhibit shall

remain filed under seal. 

According to the parties’ respective declarations, Exhibits A - C contain “Fairchild’s

sales, revenue, strategic marketing and product status information” (see Ondrick Decl. ¶ 4),

and “Power Integrations’ sales and finances, pricing terms, customers, internal marketing

and sales data, costs, [and] profit margins” (see Headley Decl. ¶ 3). Although the Court

agrees that Exhibits A - C contain such sealable material, each exhibit also appears to

contain a substantial amount of non-sealable material.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.” See Civil

L.R. 79-5(a). The request “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

material.” See id. 

In lieu of denial, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the administrative motion to the

extent it seeks to seal Exhibits A - C and related portions of the motion to exclude, pending

each parties’ filing, by November 3, 2015, a supplemental response that identifies, with

specificity, the portions of said exhibits and motion that contain such party’s confidential

information. Pending the Court’s ruling on the parties’ supplemental responses, said

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 748 Filed 10/20/15 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

exhibits and motion will remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 748 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3