Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al

Filing 295

Order by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 287 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PLANTRONICS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
ALIPH, INC., et al.,

14

ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
(DKT. NO. 287)

Defendantsa.
/

15
16

No. C 09-01714 WHA

Plaintiff moves to seal three exhibits and redactions contained in an exhibit and its

17

motion in limine. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth

18

Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal

19

documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a

20

closure of a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work

21

of the courts will be unduly compromised.

22

1.

23

Motions in limine are part of the trial and must be laid bare absent compelling reasons.

REDACTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE.

24

The proposed redactions fail to meet the compelling reason, or even the good cause standard.

25

Plaintiff, for example, seeks to redact the following sentence:

26
27
28

Dr. Leonard does not cite nor otherwise rely upon Aliph’s technical
experts, Aliph’s engineers or any other person with technical
training to support his characterization of the Freebit earbud
technology as ‘non-infringing’ (id. ¶¶ 37, 40), something ‘Aliph
could have implemented’ (id.) and a design that ‘could achieve
similar functionality’ to the infringing products (id. ¶ 37).

1

(Br. 9). This cannot possibly be sealable. The request to seal portions of plaintiff’s motion in

2

limine is DENIED.

3

2.

4

Plaintiff seeks to redact footnotes citing discovery documents and two percentages

REDACTIONS TO EXHIBIT C.

5

contained in excerpts of the expert report of Matthew R. Lynde. This too is not sealable. The

6

request to seal redacted portions of exhibit C is DENIED.

7

3.

8

Plaintiff seeks to seal the entirety of exhibit E which is the expert report of Dr. Gregory

9

ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT E.

K. Leonard. Significant portions of this exhibit are not sealable. For example, Dr. Leonard’s
17-page CV, an 87-page list of documents considered, and numerous paragraphs in Dr.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Leonard’s report are not sealable.

12

The request to seal the entirety of exhibit E is DENIED. Plaintiff may file an

13

administrative motion for leave to file under seal narrowly tailored redactions in accordance with

14

governing case law (and with an appropriate declaration) for exhibit E by DECEMBER 9 AT

15

NOON. Aggressive application of redactions will be looked upon with disfavor.

16

4.

17

Plaintiff seeks to seal excerpts of the deposition testimony of Dr. Leonard. This request

18

ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT F.

is GRANTED.

19

5.

20

Plaintiff seeks to seal a license dated January 7, 2011. This request is GRANTED.

ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT G.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: December 5, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2