Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
1061
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 1041 JOINT MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURTS AUGUST 10, 2012 ORDER TO ALLOW PARTIES TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
<![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.
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.,
No. C 05-4063 CW
ORDER GRANTING
JOINT MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM THE
COURT’S AUGUST 10,
2012 ORDER TO
ALLOW PARTIES TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 1041)
Defendants.
________________________________/
On July 19, 2012, Defendants Advanced Semiconductor
17
Engineering, Inc. and ASE (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, ASE) and
18
STATS ChipPAC, Inc., STATS ChipPAC (BVI) Limited and STATS
19
ChipPAC, Ltd. (collectively, STATS ChipPAC) moved to file under
20
seal various exhibits attached to the declarations of Ramy E.
21
Hanna, Monica Eno, Flynn Carson and Justin Lewis submitted in
22
support of their motion for summary judgment related to Plaintiff
23
Tessera, Inc.’s breach of contract claims.
Defendants also sought
24
to seal their unredacted motion for summary judgment.
Defendants
25
represented that they and Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. had each
26
designated some of these exhibits as confidential.
27
28
ASE, STATS
1
ChipPAC and Tessera all filed declarations in support of the
2
motion to seal.
3
See Docket Nos. 1010-1, 1010-2 and 1023.
On August 10, 2012, the Court denied the motion to seal,
4
finding that in each of their declarations, the parties had made
5
only conclusory statements that they considered the information
6
confidential without setting forth specific facts establishing
7
that the documents are sealable.
8
directed Defendants to file the declarations, their supporting
9
exhibits and the unredacted memorandum of law in the public docket
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Docket No. 1033.
The Court
within three days thereafter.
On August 13, 2012, Defendants filed a redacted motion for
12
summary judgment and some, but not all, of the supporting
13
materials at issue in the Court’s August 10, 2012 Order in the
14
public record.
15
Tessera jointly filed the instant motion, seeking relief from the
16
prior order and leave to file under seal a much smaller subset of
17
the documents that Defendants sought to seal in their original
18
motion.
19
in support of the motion.
20
motion, the parties seek to seal the entirety of Exhibit A to the
21
Carson declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration,
22
portions of Exhibit D to the Carson declaration, Exhibit A to the
23
Lewis declaration and Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration and
24
portions of their motion for summary judgment that refer to the
25
information contained in these exhibits.
26
Docket No. 1042.
Docket No. 1041.
At the same time, Defendants and
STATS ChipPAC also filed a declaration
Docket No. 1052.
In the renewed
The parties seek to seal court records connected to a
27
dispositive motion.
28
the party who has designated them as confidential “must overcome a
To establish that the documents are sealable,
2
strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons
2
supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general
3
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”
4
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
5
(citation omitted).
6
stringent “good cause” standard is applied to sealed discovery
7
documents attached to non-dispositive motions).
8
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
9
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
11
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
12
file each document under seal.
13
Cf. id. at 678 (explaining that a less
This cannot be
Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
The parties represent that Exhibit A to the Carson
14
declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration contain
15
Tessera’s license agreements with ASE and ChipPAC.
16
Tessera has not filed a declaration in support of this renewed
17
motion to seal, other than its original conclusory declaration,
18
the parties point out that the Court has previously granted
19
requests to seal Tessera’s similar license agreements with other
20
parties in this and other cases, and aver that the harm that would
21
be caused disclosure of the instant license agreements would be
22
the same as the harm resulting from disclosure of the other
23
license agreements.
24
Docket Nos. 26, 96, Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
25
Case No. 11-6121.
26
case, Tessera submitted a declaration stating that similar license
27
agreements contain “information about Tessera’s licensing of its
28
patented semiconductor packaging technology” and that “[p]ublic
Mot. at 4.
Although
See, e.g., Docket No. 1034;
In support of an earlier motion to seal in this
3
1
disclosure of non-public details of that program would jeopardize
2
Tessera’s ability to continue to license its technology
3
successfully,” which is “critical to its business.”
4
Decl., Docket No. 1025 ¶¶ 3, 5.
5
the parties have established that Exhibit A to the Carson
6
declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration are sealable.
7
MacDonald
Accordingly, the Court finds that
STATS ChipPAC represents that portions of Exhibit D to the
Carson declaration, Exhibit A to the Lewis declaration and
9
Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration are sealable because they
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
“reference or detail the amount of royalty payments made by STATS
11
ChipPAC and/or royalty rates allegedly owed by STATS ChipPAC
12
pursuant to its TCC License Agreement with Tessera.”
13
Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.
14
“semiconductor chip assembly business is a highly competitive
15
field and financial information such as licensing royalty rates
16
and royalty payments are not shared with competitors.”
17
¶ 8.
18
of various kinds in which the amount of royalties it will pay to
19
another, or that another company will pay to it, is an important
20
deal term.”
21
information it seeks to seal were publicly disclosed, because
22
future “potential licensees and licensors” could use the
23
information “to their competitive advantage” in future
24
negotiations.
25
that STATS ChipPAC seeks to seal, the Court finds that it has
26
established that they are sealable.
27
28
See also id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
McNaughton
It states that the
Id. at
“STATS ChipPAC frequently negotiates licensing arrangements
Id.
It believes that it will be disadvantaged if the
Id.
Having reviewed the portions of these exhibits
STATS ChipPAC further seeks to seal another portion of
Exhibit R to the Eno declaration, a record of a wire transfer made
4
1
by STATS ChipPAC which contains its “confidential banking and
2
customer information,” public disclosure of which could put its
3
financial accounts “at risk of access or mishandling.”
4
¶ 7, 9.
5
to seal is its bank account number and customer identification
6
number and finds that it has established compelling reasons to
7
seal this information.
8
9
Id. at
The Court notes that the information STATS ChipPAC seeks
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the
parties’ motion (Docket No. 1041).
Within three days of the date
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
of this Order, Defendants shall electronically file under seal
11
unredacted versions of Exhibits A and D to the Carson declaration,
12
Exhibit 1 to the Hanna declaration, Exhibit A to the Lewis
13
declaration, Exhibits M and R to the Eno declaration and their
14
motion for summary judgment.
15
The Court warns the parties that, in the future, they are
16
required to comply with the terms of Local Rule 79-5.
17
to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only
18
sealable material.”
19
designating the material as sealable must file a declaration in
20
support of the relevant motion to seal, establishing that the
21
specific material at issue is in fact sealable.
22
Rule 79-5(b),(c), (d).
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Local Rule 79-5(a).
All motions
Further, the party
See, e.g., Local
24
25
26
Dated:
8/20/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
27
28
5
]]>
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?
