Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corporation

Opinion

3 4 CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:18-cv-04571-JD 5 Plaintiff, y. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 203, 205, 208, 209, 212 7 LSI CORPORATION, et al., g Defendants. 9 At the Court’s direction, see Dkt. No. 197, the parties filed a joint consolidated motion to 10 seal selected exhibits, see Dkt. No. 203, related to claim construction and partial summary 11 judgment motions. Third party, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., filed a motion to seal two exhibits, 12 see Dkt. No. 205, in response to the Court’s order, Dkt. No. 197. In addition to these motions, 5 13 || plaintiffs and defendants filed motions to seal exhibits associated with LSI’s motion for summary 14 judgment. See Dkt. No. 208; Dkt. No. 209. Finally, defendants filed a motion to seal an exhibit 3 15 || associated with their motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 212. a 16 The Court concludes that the parties have met their burden for “articulat[ing] compelling 3 17 || reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 18 public policies favoring disclosures.” See In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., --- F. Supp. 3d 19 ---, 2021 WL 4190165, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). For each document the parties seek to seal, 21 they have identified facts showing that the portions sought to be redacted and sealed were related 22 to proprietary technical information or pricing strategies and manufacturing costs, the disclosure 23 of which would cause the parties competitive harm. Consequently, the motions are granted. 25 Dated: September 29, 2021 26 27 28 JAMES#$PONATO United tates District Judge