Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-07424
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Judge Spero denied sealing motions without prejudice and terminated other moot motions.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected. Three earlier motions were terminated as moot, and all pending motions to file documents under seal were denied without prejudice, subject to possible renewed motions by October 8, 2021.
What happened
In Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, several motions remained listed as pending after the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.
The court terminated three motions as moot: a hearing request about already-resolved dismissal motions, a joint request to change the claim-construction schedule after that issue was resolved, and a request to pause the case during transfer. The court also said a venue motion had already been decided. It denied all pending motions to file documents under seal, without prejudice, because they did not meet court and Ninth Circuit requirements. The parties could file new, narrower sealing motions by October 8, 2021; otherwise, the documents would be filed publicly.
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on September 24, 2021.
The detailed version
- Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD · No. 3:21-cv-07424
- Vince Chhabria
- Sept. 24, 2021
Background
The case had been transferred from the Western District of Texas based on a Federal Circuit mandamus order. Several motions filed between September 2020 and January 2021 still appeared as pending on the docket.
Motions terminated as moot
The court terminated three motions because later events had made them moot, meaning the court no longer needed to decide them:
- Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for a hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss, because those dismissal motions had since been resolved. - The parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order concerning claim construction, because that issue had been fully briefed and resolved. - Defendants’ motion to stay the case pending transfer, because the transfer had occurred.
The court also stated that defendants’ motion to change venue to the Northern District of California had already been decided and should not remain listed as pending.
Motions to file under seal
The court denied all pending motions to file documents under seal, without prejudice. The parties had sought to seal entire briefs and other documents while providing little or no justification. The court explained that court records are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. It also said that sealing motions must be narrowly tailored to cover only material that can properly be sealed, often through redactions, and must include declarations explaining why sealing is justified.
The parties were permitted to file new, consolidated motions seeking to seal only appropriate portions of the documents, provided those motions complied with the court’s procedures and Ninth Circuit law. The deadline was October 8, 2021. If the parties did not file renewed motions, the court stated that it would order the documents placed in the public record.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered that the three moot motions be terminated, noted that the venue motion had already been decided, and denied all pending sealing motions without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.