Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 73 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

FUJIFILM CORPORATION,

Case No. 12-cv-03587-WHO

Plaintiff,
7
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

8
9

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 73

Defendant.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
INTRODUCTION

12

On December 20, 2013, defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) filed an

13
14

Unopposed Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Its

15

Motion for Leave to Supplement Its Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. No. 73. In support of its motion,

16

Motorola filed the Declaration of Jordan Trent Jones. Dkt. No. 73-1. Motorola states that the

17

materials it seeks to file under seal contain information that plaintiff Fujifilm Corporation has

18

designated as confidential under the protective order in this case. As required by Civil Local Rule

19

79-5(e), Fujifilm filed the Declaration of Bradford A. Cangro in support of the motion. Dkt. No.

20

81.

21

For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

22

LEGAL STANDARD

23

Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

24

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

25

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). But this right is not absolute. To balance the competing interests of

26

the public’s right of inspection against litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to file

27

under seal matters related to dispositive motions must provide “compelling reasons” to do so;

28

similarly, a party seeking to file under seal matters related to non-dispositive motions must

1

provide “good cause” to do so. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th

2

Cir. 2006). Even under the laxer “good cause” standard, a party seeking to seal materials must

3

make a “particularized showing . . . with respect to any individual document” to justify its request.

4

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003). Under that standard,

5

a party that only offers “tepid and general justifications” necessarily “fail[s] to demonstrate any

6

specific prejudice or harm.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. “Broad allegations of harm,

7

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are insufficient. Beckman Indus.,

8

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation

9

omitted).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

DISCUSSION
The Cangro Declaration in support of the motion is deficient. As the Ninth Circuit has

12

instructed, the failure to provide specific and articulated explanations of prejudice or harm is

13

insufficient to justify filing documents under seal. Fujifilm merely states that the documents

14

sought to be sealed “contain confidential and proprietary technical business information that is not

15

publicly disclosed and disclosure of this information to Fujifilm’s competitors could cause

16

competitive injury to Fujifilm.” Cangro Decl. ¶ 2. While this might be true, it was not apparent

17

from an initial review of the documents. Fujifilm's bare assertion falls far short of the

18

“particularized showing” that the Ninth Circuit requires to justify sealing court documents.

19

Fujifilm provides no explanation for how or why the information sought to be sealed would lead

20

to harm or what sort of “competitive injury” can result. Without adequately explaining the basis

21

for the motion in compliance with Ninth Circuit law, the motion must be denied.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

Because Fujifilm provides nothing more than a “[b]road allegation[] of harm,

3

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” of “specific prejudice or harm,” the

4

motion to seal is DENIED. Any renewed motion to seal must comply with Ninth Circuit law.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3