The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER RE: INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENTS
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
Before the Court are several motions to remove incorrectly filed documents. ECF Nos. 9 823, 1403, 1482, and 1508. The Court will remove only those documents which are properly 20 sealed and contain information that should properly remain confidential. 21 ECF No. 823 is Apple's motion to remove Exhibit I to the Declaration of Eric Olson, ECF No. 822-7. The Court denied Apple's motion to seal this document on June 19, 2012. ECF No. 23 1105. Accordingly, Apple's motion to remove this document is DENIED.
ECF No. 1403 is Apple's motion to remove Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Declaration of Joby 22 Martin in support of Samsung's Daubert motion. The Court denied Apple's motion to seal these 26 documents on August 9, 2012. ECF No. 1649. Accordingly, Apple's motion to remove these 27 documents is DENIED. 28
ECF No. 1482 is nonparty Toshiba's motion to remove an Exhibit to Toshiba's motion to 2 file under seal. The exhibit, ECF No. 1378-3, is an excerpt from Trial Exhibit 630, which is a table 3 summarizing license agreements. The excerpt Toshiba now wishes to take down has the "Licensed 4 Products/Technology" and "Payments" columns redacted, but displays the "Term" column. 5
Toshiba's request to remove the document is based on the fact that it reveals the term. The Court 6 denied Toshiba's motion to seal the "Term" column on August 9, 2012. ECF No. 1649 at 25. 7
Accordingly, Toshiba's motion to remove this document is DENIED. 8 ECF No. 1508 is nonparty Qualcomm's motion to remove Attachment 2 to Qualcomm's Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 1394, which is a letter from Samsung's counsel to 10 Qualcomm containing confidential license information, including royalties. The Court specifically considered this document, including the fact that it had been made briefly available to the public, in its August 9 Order on sealing motions. ECF 1649 at 25-26. The Court ruled that sealing of the 13 royalty payment information was warranted despite the brief public disclosure. Id. Accordingly, 14 Qualcomm's motion to remove this document is GRANTED. 15
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...