Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


January 30, 2012

FUJITSU LIMITED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BELKIN, INC.; D-LINK CORPORATION; D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.; NETGEAR, INC.; ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; AND ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; AND DENYING JOINT REQUEST TO TAKE FUJITSU'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS OFF CALENDAR (re: dkt #: 210, 216)

On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff Fujitsu Limited ("Plaintiff") filed a notice of Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Infringement Contentions ("Motion") and an Administrative Motion 21 for Administrative Relief to File Portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Philip A. Irwin 22 Under Seal ("Sealing Motion"). See ECF Nos. 209, 210. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff and 23 Defendants filed a joint stipulation asking the Court to take Plaintiff's Motion off calendar because 24 "the parties . . . are presently working on several stipulations that will resolve Fujitsu's motion, as 25 well as a proposed amendment of Defendants' Invalidity Contentions and related issues, by 26 agreement." ECF No. 216 at 2. 27 Notwithstanding the Parties' assertion that they "intend to finalize the stipulations and file 28 them with the Court by Friday, January 20, 2012," id., as of January 30, 2012, they have filed no such stipulations. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' joint request to 2 take Plaintiff's Motion off calendar. The Parties may renew this request upon filing their above-3 referenced stipulations. Alternatively, Plaintiff is certainly welcome to withdraw its Motion. 4 (ECF No. 122) in this matter. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), when a party moves to seal 7 documents designated as sealable by another party, the designating party must file a supporting 8 declaration within 7 days, or the sealing motion will be denied. No supporting declaration was 9 filed by any Defendant in response to the January 4, 2012 Sealing Motion. 10

Plaintiff's Sealing Motion requests sealing of certain documents that were designated "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" by Defendants under the Stipulated Protective Order 6 As noted in the Protective Order, simply designating information as confidential does not entitle the parties to file it under seal. See Stipulated Protective Order, ¶ 1, ECF No. 122. If any Defendant objects to the public filing of the documents identified in Plaintiff's Sealing Motion, it 13 shall file a declaration stating the basis for asserting confidentiality as to each exhibit Plaintiff 14 seeks to seal. These declarations must be filed by February 3, 2012. If no declaration is received, 15 the Court will order the relevant documents to be publicly filed without sealing. 16

The Parties are on notice that, in the future, failure to follow the local rules and to submit declarations in support of motions to seal will result in denial of sealing motions and public filing 18 of documents. 19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120130

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.