Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-04677
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Broadcom v. Netflix, Judge Donato ordered two exhibits withdrawn from a sealing dispute because the court had not decided the underlying motion.
Broadcom Corporation and Netflix, Inc.; nonparties VMware, F5 Networks, Microsoft, and Oracle; and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
Broadcom Corporation and Netflix, Inc. were involved in a dispute over whether parts of an expert report should remain sealed. The report referred to confidential materials belonging to VMware, F5 Networks, Microsoft, and Oracle.
VMware and Oracle supported sealing portions that referred to their confidential source code. F5 Networks and Microsoft did not respond. The court noted that public access ordinarily applies when a party does not support continued sealing, but the underlying motion had not been decided and the patent involved was no longer at issue.
Judge James Donato ordered Exhibits G and H withdrawn from Broadcom’s motion and said no further action was required. The order did not decide the underlying motion to strike or the merits of the patent dispute.
The detailed version
- Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-04677
- James Donato
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
The court addressed sealing motions connected to Broadcom’s motion to strike portions of the supplemental opening expert report of Samrat Bhattacharjee. That motion had been terminated without prejudice under earlier docket orders.
Netflix sought sealing because the report referred to materials that nonparties VMware, F5 Networks, Microsoft, and Oracle had designated as confidential. VMware and Oracle filed statements supporting sealing under the court’s local rule and showed good cause for sealing portions that referred to their confidential source code.
F5 Networks and Microsoft did not respond. The court explained that, ordinarily, the failure to support sealing would leave public access as the default for those companies’ confidential materials.
Ruling
The court did not rule on the underlying motion to strike. It noted that the relevant patent was no longer at issue and that Broadcom could withdraw the sealed material. The court ordered Exhibits G and H to the motion withdrawn and stated that no further action was required.
This was an order resolving sealing-related matters; it did not decide the merits of the patent dispute or the motion to strike.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.