IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 05/21/12 ORDERING that Google's 95 Notice of Request to Seal Documents is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Iconfind, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

Google, Inc.,

11

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00319-GEB-JFM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
SEALING REQUEST

12
13

On May 15, 2012, Google, Inc. (“Google”) filed on the public

14

docket a “Notice of Request to Seal Documents” in which it “requests to

15

file under seal certain portions of its Opening Claim Construction

16

Brief.” (ECF No. 95, 1:20-21.) Google makes the following conclusory

17

argument in this filing: “Google’s Opening Claim Construction Brief

18

contains

19

designated CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY under the Protective Order

20

(Dkt. 68) by

21

. . . their disclosure to the public could harm IconFind’s business.”

22

Id. at 1:22-26.

IconFind’s

confidential

IconFind.

commercial

information

and

was

These documents should be filed under seal as

23

On May 16, 2012, Google emailed the following documents to the

24

Court for in camera consideration of its sealing request: a three page

25

request

26

construction brief (“Brief”) to which is attached fifteen exhibits, and

27

a one page proposed sealing order. The information Google seeks to have

28

sealed is Exhibit 9 to its Brief and one sentence on page 9, footnote 2,

to

seal

documents,

a

twenty-seven

1

page

opening

claim

1

of its Brief, which relates to Exhibit 9. The sentence which Google

2

seeks to seal simply states that a prior case involving Plaintiff and

3

Yahoo!, Inc. settled for a certain monetary amount; Exhibit 9 is the

4

settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Yahoo!, Inc.1

5
6

Google made the following arguments in its Request to Seal,
which should have been included in its public filing:

7
8

Discovery
documents
attached
to
a
non-dispositive motion may be sealed upon a showing
of good cause by the producing party.

9

. . . .

10

Exhibit
[9]
to
Google’s
Opening
Claim
Construction Brief is a settlement agreement
between Plaintiff and Yahoo! Inc. It contains the
terms of that settlement and Plaintiff designated
it CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY. One sentence
in Google’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
contains a term of that settlement agreement.

11
12
13
14

The lower “good cause” standard should be
applied because claim construction briefs are
non-dispositive. Good cause exists to seal Exhibit
[9] and the related sentence because the document
and
related
sentence
contain
IconFind’s
confidential commercial information. The settlement
agreement is available only to IconFind employees
and
counsel
and
derive
value
from
their
confidential nature. . . . Furthermore, the
public’s interest in viewing this information is
weak because the Claim Construction brief is not
dispositive. This document and the related sentence
are not necessary for the public to understand the
issues presented in this case.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Google’s proposed sealing of documents is
narrowly drawn to only confidential information
that derives value from its confidential nature.
Google respectfully requests that these documents
be sealed from public disclosure.

22
23
24
25

(Def.’s Request to Seal, 2:4-3:14 (internal citations omitted).) “All

26
27
28

1

Google identified the wrong exhibit number, Exhibit 10, in its
sealing request and proposed order. The referenced settlement agreement
is Exhibit 9 to the Brief.
2

1

requests to seal must specify the particular reason that the information

2

should be sealed. . . . The guiding principle here is that as much

3

information as possible should remain accessible to the public and no

4

more should be sealed than absolutely necessary.” Lahrichi v. Lumera

5

Corp., No. C04-2124C, 2007 WL 1521222, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2007).

6

Further, Google has not explained why it submitted the Brief’s

7

fourteen additional exhibits to the Court for in camera consideration of

8

its sealing request. “To the extent [the other exhibits are] not

9

relevant

to

the

[sealing

decision]”

submitting

unnecessary

and

10

“voluminous

11

resources[.]”

12

L(AJB), 2007 WL 2177028, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007). Nor did Google

13

adequately address in its moving papers the relevancy of the information

14

it seeks to have sealed; the Court was forced to comb through Google’s

15

twenty-seven

16

construction issue. Google, as the movant for a sealing order, is

17

required to succinctly evince the relevancy of the information it seeks

18

to have sealed.

19

[documents]

.

.

.

is

an

inefficient

use

of

judicial

Young v. Actions Semiconductor Co., Ltd., No. 06cv1667-

page

Brief

to

ascertain

its

relevancy

to

a

claim

DISCUSSION

20

“Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents[;]”

21

Google makes a conclusory argument in its Request to Seal, a brief which

22

it seeks to file under seal, that the lesser “good cause” standard

23

applies to its sealing request. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d

24

665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the issue concerning which sealing

25

standard applies need not be reached since Google has not shown that

26

what it seeks to seal is relevant to the claim construction at issue,

27

and is text which needs to be referenced in its Brief or attached as an

28

exhibit. See Young, 2007 WL 2177028, at *4 (denying a request to seal,
3

1

partly

2

sealed).

because

the

request

sought

to

have

irrelevant

information

3

A party filing a motion to seal or redact “should carefully

4

consider not only whether a document or a portion thereof warrants

5

sealing, but whether what [it] deems to be confidential is relevant” to

6

what is at issue. Id. This relevancy determination is important because

7

the Court should not condone what are “essentially secret judicial

8

proceedings” on a matter that has no relevancy or sufficient probative

9

value on what is at issue. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel

10

Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 345 (3d Cir. 1986); see also E.D.

11

Cal. R. 141(b)(“The [Request] shall set forth the statutory or other

12

authority for sealing, the requested duration, . . . and all other

13

relevant information.”).

14

For the stated reasons, Google’s sealing request is denied.

15

See U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

16

(indicating that when a judge denies a sealing request the party

17

submitting the request then decides how to proceed in light of the

18

ruling).

19

Dated:

May 21, 2012

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
4