2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11 12
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Related Cases:
13 SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
CASE NO.: CV-10-04241-LHK
14 Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.: CV-10-05196-LHK
15 v.
CASE NO.: CV-10-05290-LHK
16 UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC, CASE NO.: CV-11-00430-LHK
17
Defendants.
18 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S FREESCALE SEMICONDUCOR, INC.,
19 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., and
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL ANALOG DEVICES, INC.
20
Plaintiffs,
21 Date: March 3, 2011
Time: 1:30 p.m. v.
22 Courtroom: Courtroom 4, 5th floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
23
LLC,
24
Defendants.
25 26 27
21 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., TSMC NORTH
2 AMERICA, and UBICOM, INC., 3 Plaintiffs, 4 v. 5 UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
LLC,
6
Defendants.
7 8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS,
12 LLC,
13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
31 Now before the Court is Defendant Keranos, LLC’s Administrative Request to File 2 Documents Under Seal. Upon consideration of the motion, and of the supporting declaration of 3 Theresa E. Norton filed therewith, the Court finds there to be good cause for granting 4 Defendant’s request to file the following documents under seal: (1) Exhibit 20 to the Declaration 5 of Theresa Norton in Support of Defendant Keranos, LLC’s Reply in Support of Motions to 6 Dismiss (“Norton Decl.”); (2) Exhibit 21 to Norton Decl.; (3) Exhibit 22 to Norton Decl.; (4) 7 Exhibit 23 to Norton Decl.; (5) Exhibit 24 to Norton Decl.; (6) Exhibit 30 to Norton Decl.; (7) 8 Exhibit 65 to Norton Decl.; (8) Exhibit 66 to Norton Decl.; and (9) Exhibit 72 to Norton Decl. 9 These documents were filed under seal in the Texas Case, and are appropriately filed under seal 10 in this action as well. 11 Defendant Keranos, LLC also seeks to file under seal the entirety of its Reply in this 12 action. This request is too broad, as a motion to seal documents must be “narrowly tailored to 13 seek sealing of only sealable material.” Civ. Local Rule 79-5(a). Defendant Keranos, LLC’s 14 Reply contains much information that is neither sealable nor confidential. Accordingly, by 15 Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Defendant is directed to submit: (1) a redacted version of its 16 Reply that can be filed in the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c); and (2) a 17 second motion to file under seal with respect to the confidential version of the Reply. If the 18 redacted version is narrowly tailored to omit only sealable material, the Court will permit the 19 confidential version to be filed under seal. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 22 DATED: February 18, 2011 _________________________________
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
23
United States District Court Judge
24 25 26 27
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART -1- CASE NO. 10-CV-04241-LHK