ASUS Computer International v. Round Rock Research, LLC

Filing 172

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS RELATED TO ROUND ROCK'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 12-cv-02099-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS RELATED TO ROUND ROCK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Re: ECF No. 157 12 Before the Court is Round Rock Research, LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under 13 14 Seal Confidential Information Disclosed in its Motion for leave to Amend its Infringement 15 Contentions. ECF Nos. 155 (Mot. for Leave to Amend); 157 (Admin. Mot. to File Under Seal). 16 The Court will grant the motion. 17 I. 18 LEGAL STANDARD A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 19 Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 20 documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 21 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation 22 marks omitted). 23 With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 24 (1) establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 25 or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 26 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 27 the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 28 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 1 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 2 With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 3 presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a 4 party seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be 5 overcome only if the party presents “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 6 that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172 at 1178-79 (internal citation omitted). “The mere fact that the 8 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 9 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. On the other hand, when a party seeks to file previously sealed discovery materials in 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 connection with a non-dispositive motion, the sealing party need not meet the ‘compelling 12 reasons’ standard “because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 13 underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that 14 case, a party need only make a “particularized showing under the good cause standard of Rule 15 26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and internal quotation 16 marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or 17 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 26(c). A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 19 20 seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 21 2374 (2012). 22 II. 23 DISCUSSION Round Rock seeks to file under seal Exhibits B through K to the Nowierski Declaration in 24 Support of Round Rock’s Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions. Nowierski 25 Decl., ECF Nos. 156 (public); 157-1 (under seal). Round Rock designated Exhibits D, G, and H 26 “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective 27 ORder. The remaining exhibits were designated “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 28 by ASUSTek Computer, Inc. The Nowierski Declaration in Support of Sealing, ECF No. 157-1, 2 1 establishes good cause for the sealing of all the exhibits, including those designated confidential 2 by ASUS. 3 Exhibits C through K are claim charts that accompany Round Rock’s infringement 4 contentions. According to the Nowierski Declaration, the claim charts contain information that is 5 not publicly known and competitively sensitive concerning the components and component 6 suppliers related to the accused products in this litigation. Exhibit B — Round Rock’s list of 7 accused instrumentalities — contains similar information. Exhibits D, G, and H, also claim charts, disclose information from reverse engineering 8 9 10 reports commissioned by Round Rock. According to the Nowierski Declaration, the reports contain highly sensitive trade secrets. The Court finds Round Rock has adequately established good cause to file under seal United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Exhibits B through K of the Nowierski Declaration in Support of Round Rock’s Motion for Leave 13 to Amend Infringement Contentions. The Court hereby GRANTS the administrative motion to 14 file under seal. Because the exhibits were already filed under seal in accordance with Civil Local 15 Rule 79-5(f)(1), the documents shall remain under seal, and Round Rock need not take any further 16 action. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2014 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?