Carnegie Mellon University v. LSI Corporation

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 || seal selected exhibits, see Dkt. No. 203, related to claim construction and partial summary || 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, 13 || plaintiffs and defendants filed motions to seal exhibits associated with LSI’s motion for summary || judgment. See Dkt. No. 208; Dkt. No. 209. Finally, defendants filed a motion to seal an exhibit 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 17 || reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the || 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 || to proprietary technical information or pricing strategies and manufacturing costs, the disclosure || of which would cause the parties competitive harm. Consequently, the motions are granted.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: September 29, 2021 28 JAMES#$PONATO United tates District Judge