VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-05671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice two deadline-extension motions because broad redactions risked hiding nonconfidential information.
VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corporation, the nonparties who might submit declarations, and members of the public seeking access to the parties’ court filings.
What happened
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation involved two joint requests connected to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties asked to extend until October 19, 2023, the deadlines for declarations from the parties and nonparties under a local court rule.
The parties said the extension would reduce duplicative work because some of the same information might appear in their response and reply briefs. The court was concerned that delaying the declarations would keep nonconfidential information from the public. It noted that several earlier briefs had been sealed or entirely redacted, and that Intel’s summary-judgment motion was completely redacted while VLSI’s had only limited redactions.
The court denied both motions without prejudice. It directed the parties to file a joint motion proposing a plan to release public versions of their briefs with only confidential information redacted before the hearings. Judge Beth Labson Freeman said the court could allow more time for declarations supporting narrowly tailored redactions if the parties agreed to file partially redacted briefs promptly.
The detailed version
- VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation · No. 5:17-cv-05671
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 29, 2023
Background
The court considered two joint administrative motions filed in connection with VLSI Technology LLC’s and Intel Corporation’s cross-motions for summary judgment:
1. A motion to extend the deadline for the parties to submit declarations under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). 2. A motion to extend the deadline for nonparties to submit declarations under the same rule.
Both motions sought an extension until October 19, 2023. The parties explained that some of the same information might be included in their response and reply briefs on the summary-judgment motions, and that an extension would reduce duplicative work for nonparties and the court.
The summary-judgment motions were filed on August 24, 2023. Responses were due September 21, replies were due October 5, and the hearing was scheduled for October 19, 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The court emphasized the public’s general right to inspect and copy judicial records and the strong presumption favoring public access when parties seek to seal court filings. It also cited the local rule’s statement that parties should seek to file portions of pleadings or briefs under seal only in rare circumstances.
The court acknowledged the burden on the parties but found that extending the deadlines could unnecessarily keep nonconfidential information from the public until after the hearing. The court noted that nine Daubert briefs had been filed under seal or entirely redacted. It also noted that Intel’s summary-judgment motion was completely redacted, while VLSI’s motion contained redactions limited to confidential information. The court found that the parties’ overly broad provisional sealing or redaction of the briefs denied the public access to records when only a small portion of the documents appeared likely to be covered by the final sealing requests.
Disposition
The court denied each administrative motion without prejudice. It instructed the parties to file a joint motion describing a plan to release public versions of their briefs, with only confidential information redacted, as soon as feasible and before the respective hearing dates.
The court stated that exhibits could remain under seal beyond the hearing date if doing so reduced the burden on the parties and the court. It also stated that it would grant a request to extend the deadline for declarations supporting narrowly tailored redactions if the parties agreed to file partially redacted versions of the briefs promptly.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on August 29, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.