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)
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?