Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
1033
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 1010 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TESSERA, INC.,
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
No. C 05-4063 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 1010)
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC.;
SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.),
INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Moving Defendants Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc.
17
and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, ASE) and STATS ChipPAC, Inc.,
18
STATS ChipPAC (BVI) Limited and STATS ChipPAC, Ltd. (collectively,
19
STATS ChipPAC) move to file under seal Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8
20
and portions of Exhibit 5 attached to the declaration of Ramy E.
21
Hanna submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment
22
related to Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.’s breach of contract claims.
23
Moving Defendants represent that Tessera has designated these
24
exhibits as confidential, and that ASE has also designated
25
portions of Exhibit 5 as confidential.
Moving Defendants also
26
seek to seal Exhibits B-N and Exhibit R to the declaration of
27
Monica Eno in support of their motion for summary judgment, which
28
1
STATS ChipPAC and Tessera have designated as confidential.
2
Defendants further seek to file under seal portions of the
3
declaration of Flynn Carson, Exhibits A through H to the Flynn
4
declaration, the declaration of Justin Lewis and Exhibit A to the
5
Lewis declaration, all of which are submitted in support of their
6
motion for summary judgment.
7
STATS ChipPAC has designated these items as confidential.
8
Finally, Moving Defendants seek to seal portions of their motion
9
for summary judgment that refer to these exhibits.
Moving
Moving Defendants represent that
The Court
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
notes that the Moving Defendants have filed a redacted version of
11
their motion for summary judgment in the public docket.
12
Docket No. 1009.
13
declarations in support of the motion to seal.
14
1010-1, 1010-2 and 1023.
15
See
ASE, STATS ChipPAC and Tessera have all filed
See Docket Nos.
The parties seek to seal court records connected to a
16
dispositive motion.
17
the party who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a
18
strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
19
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
20
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
21
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
22
(citation omitted).
23
stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery
24
documents attached to non-dispositive motions).
25
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
26
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
27
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
To establish that the documents are sealable,
Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less
28
2
This cannot be
1
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
2
file each document under seal.
3
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
In each of their declarations, the parties have failed to
4
demonstrate with particularity any compelling reason that these
5
documents should be protected from public disclosure or
6
demonstrate how it would be harmed if this information were filed
7
publicly. Instead, the parties make conclusory statements that
8
they consider the information confidential without providing
9
specific facts that would “outweigh the general history of access
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
and the public policies favoring disclosure.”
11
679.
12
Pintos, 605 F.3d at
For example, ASE states that page two of Exhibit 5 to the
13
Hanna declaration discusses “confidential, sensitive business
14
information, including information concerning ASE’s assembly of
15
various types of semiconductor packages” and avers that
16
“disclosure of this information would reveal sensitive business
17
information pertaining to ASE,” without explaining why such a
18
result would be harmful or how the information is sensitive.
19
Rizzi Decl. ¶ 4.
20
STATS ChipPAC and Tessera make more conclusory statements,
21
averring that the Lewis and Carson declarations and most of the
22
exhibits to the Lewis, Carson and Eno declarations they seek to
23
seal contain “confidential technical, financial and/or business
24
information of STATS and/or Tessera and have been designated as
25
subject to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case.”
Eno
26
Decl. ¶ 4.
They
27
also simply state that Exhibits B, H and M to the Eno declaration
See also id. at ¶¶ 8-12; Brenza Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.
28
3
1
“contain confidential communications between litigation counsel.”
2
Eno Decl. ¶ 3; Brenza Decl. ¶ 3.
3
Similarly, Tessera makes only conclusory statements in
4
relation to the documents attached to the Hanna declaration.
5
While it describes the contents of these exhibits and states that
6
it has designated these to be confidential under the protective
7
orders in this or other actions, it does not describe with
8
particularity the need to file each document under seal.
9
Brenza Decl. ¶¶ 10-15.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
See
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to seal is DENIED
11
(Docket No. 1010).
12
the Moving Defendants shall electronically file the Hanna, Eno,
13
Carson and Flynn declarations, the exhibits attached thereto and
14
their unredacted motion in the public record.
15
Within three days of the date of this Order,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
Dated:
8/10/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
