MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MLC'S ? v. "SUGGESTION REGARDING THE COURT'S RECUSAL" 10 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 702 11 Defendant. a 12 It has been brought to the Court’s attention that the document filed by plaintiff MLC at

13 || Docket No. 702 is a “Suggestion” regarding the Court’s recusal rather than a motion to disqualify,

v 14 || and thus that it is within the Court’s discretion to resolve the matter. See Civil L.R. 3-14. The Court

15 || has examined the record and concludes that there is no basis for recusal in this case. The Court G16 || recused itself from 19-3345 because the Court’s conflicts check revealed the presence of a conflict

= 17 with IMFT. Neither IMFT nor Intel is a party to this action.! See generally In re Specht, 622 F.3d

Zz 18 697 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Aragon, No. 99-50341, 2000 WL 868566, at *1 (9th Cir. June 19 |) 29, 2000). Further, after the filing of MLC’s “Suggestion” and in an abundance of caution, the 20 Court divested itself of Intel stock. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(f). 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES MLC’s “Suggestion” of recusal, finding no basis for recusal 22 || in this matter. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Site WU tee 24 || Dated: October 17, 2019 SUSAN ILLSTON 25 United States District Judge 26 07 ' The Court was unaware of the conflict posed by IMFT (Intel) until 19-3345 was assigned to the undersigned and the automated conflicts check revealed the conflict. The Court notes that 2g || MLC never disclosed IMFT or Intel as an “interested party” pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15; “interested parties” are included in the automated conflicts check.