Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 915

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 730 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 739 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 784 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 796 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 840 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 857 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 887 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 915

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Before the court are seven motions to seal documents filed by the parties in connection with various motions in limine and motions to exclude expert opinion and testimony. The "compelling reasons" standard is applied to motions to seal materials attached to dispositive motions. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010). That is, a party seeking to file documents under seal in a dispositive motion must overcome the strong presumption of public access by showing that "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). In Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit explained that "compelling reasons" are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions such as motions for summary judgment, just as No. C 07-1658 PJH ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Id. at 1179 ("the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the `public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.'" (quotation omitted)). Because motions in limine and motions to exclude expert testimony at trial are part of the trial, all documents filed in connection with those motions must likewise be publicly filed, absent compelling reasons. In granting a motion to seal documents under the Kamakana standard, the court must weigh "relevant factors," base its decision "on a compelling reason," and "articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 (citation omitted). "Relevant factors" include the "public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets." Id. at 679 n.6. In light of this standard, the court rules as follows: 1. SAP's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 730) filed in support of its

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motions in limine is GRANTED. The specified pages of Exhibit K to the Declaration of Jason McDonell contain references to Oracle's source code. For the reasons stated in the court's August 26, 2010, order, the court finds that Oracle's supporting declaration has established a compelling reason to seal these documents. 2. Oracle's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 739) filed in support of its

motions in limine is DENIED. For the reasons stated in the court's August 26, 2010, order, the court finds that Oracle has not met its burden of establishing that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. In addition, the declarations attached as Docket No. 739-2 (as to which no sealing request was made) shall be filed in the public record. 3. Oracle's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 784) filed in support of its

motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of SAP's expert Stephen Clarke, and in opposition to SAP's motions in limine is DENIED. These documents contain information that either Oracle or SAP has designated as confidential, and wish to have filed under seal. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

However, the court finds that neither SAP nor Oracle has met its burden of establishing that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. In addition, the declarations attached as Docket Nos. 784-2 and 784-3 (as to which no sealing request was made) shall be filed in the public record.1 4. SAP's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 796) filed in support of its

motions to exclude expert opinion and testimony and its motions in limine is DENIED. These documents contain information that Oracle has designated as confidential and wishes to have filed under seal. However, the court finds that Oracle has not met its burden of establishing that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. 5. Oracle's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 840) filed in support of its

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

opposition to SAP's motion to exclude opinion and testimony of Oracle's expert Paul K. Meyer is DENIED. These documents contain information that SAP has designated as confidential and wishes to have filed under seal. However, the court finds that SAP has not met its burden of establishing that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. In addition, the declaration attached as Docket No. 840-3 (as to which no sealing request was made) shall be filed in the public record. 6. SAP's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 857) filed in support of its

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

opposition to Oracle's motion to exclude expert opinion and testimony of SAP's expert Stephen Clarke is DENIED. These documents contain information that Oracle has designated as confidential and wishes to have filed under seal. However, the court finds that Oracle has not met its burden of establishing that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. In addition, the declaration attached as Docket No. 857-1 (as to which no sealing request was made) shall be filed in the public record. 7. Oracle's motion to seal documents (Docket No. 887) filed in support of its

reply to SAP's opposition to Oracle's motion to exclude expert opinion and testimony of SAP's expert Stephen Clarke is DENIED. Oracle has not met its burden of establishing Oracle's motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion filed under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) has been mooted by its withdrawal of the underlying motion. 3
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

that a compelling reason exists to seal these materials. In addition, the declaration attached as Docket No. 887-3 (as to which no sealing request was made) shall be filed in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4