Intermotive, Inc. v. InPower, LLC

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/14/12 ORDERING that the parties' Request to Seal Document(s ) 75 is DENIED without prejudice. If the parties wish to renew their request in light of this order, they may do so by 11/23/12. Otherwise, the settlement agreement shall be filed on the public docket by 11/30/12.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

INTERMOTIVE, INC.,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:05-cv-00844-KJM-GGH

INPOWER, INC.,
Defendant.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff and defendant, the only parties to this case, jointly make a motion to seal

16
17

their settlement agreement. The motion has been submitted without argument. For the reasons

18

below, this motion is DENIED.

19

I.

20

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff sued defendant in 2005 for patent infringement. (ECF 1.) Defendant

21

counterclaimed. (ECF 8.) In 2006, the assigned judge approved the parties’ stipulated

22

protective order to govern discovery. (ECF 23.) In 2007, the case was stayed pending

23

completion of a patent reexamination. (ECF 30.) Upon motion of the parties, this court lifted

24

the stay in April 2012. (ECF 64.) On October 16, 2012, the parties filed a notice of settlement.

25

(ECF 71.) On November 1, 2012, the parties filed the pending request to seal the settlement

26

agreement. (ECF 75).
1

1

II.

2

STANDARD
There is a presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v.

3

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is

4

not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

“[I]f the court decides to seal certain judicial records [after conscientiously balancing the

6

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret],

7

it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling,

8

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

9

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the

10

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might

11

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

12

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting

13

Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, “‘good cause’ suffices

14

to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to nondispositive

15

motions.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

16

Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213).

17

III.

ANALYSIS
The parties have not met the standard for overcoming the presumption in favor of

18
19

public access to court records. They request the court seal the settlement agreement because

20

public disclosure would reveal the parties’ trade secrets. (Joint Req. for Sealing of Docs. at 2,

21

ECF 75.) In support, the parties simply cite Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v.

22

Cincinnati Insurance Co., 178 F.3d 943, 946 (7th Cir. 1999). The parties do not indicate which

23

part of the settlement agreement would reveal legitimate trade secrets. Nor do the parties distill

24

and apply a rule from Citizens First to the facts of this case. The parties’ entire request consists

25

only of a conclusory invocation of a legal ground and citation to a case.

26

/////
2

1

The court has carefully reviewed the settlement agreement and cannot find any

2

information which, if revealed, could compromise the parties’ proprietary interests. The text of

3

the agreement names the disputed patents, stipulates to terminate the litigation, and discusses

4

other apparently innocuous details. The appended owner’s manuals relevant to the disputed

5

patents are already available to the public via the internet. On this record, there are no grounds

6

on which to grant the parties’ request.

7

IV.

8

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the parties’ request to seal is DENIED without prejudice. If the

9

parties wish to renew their request in light of this order, they may do so by November 23, 2012.

10

Otherwise, the settlement agreement shall be filed on the public docket by November 30, 2012.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2012.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3