Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 112

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SEAL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS by Hon. William Alsup re 109 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, et al.,
Defendant.
/

13
14

No. C 12-05579 WHA

QIANG WANG,

On February 11, plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of

15

plaintiff’s motion to amend infringement contentions and the entirety of Exhibits A through C

16

and Exhibits F through K (Dkt. No. 109). Plaintiff disregarded the rules. See, e.g., Local

17

Rule 7-2, 79-5. For example, the unredacted version of plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

18

infringement contentions failed to indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of

19

the document that have been omitted from the redacted version. See Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D).

20

Plaintiff also failed to propose narrowly-tailored redactions for the exhibits sought to be sealed.

21

Surely the entirety of defendants’ supplemental response to plaintiff’s second set of

22

interrogatories (Exhibit F) is not sealable.

23

Moreover, plaintiff’s four-page motion for leave to amend infringement contentions

24

lacked a noticed hearing date (rather, the sealing motion noticed a March 20 hearing date) and

25

was not properly filed on ECF. Exhibits A through K were simply appended to the motion, with

26

no supporting declaration identifying the exhibits. Plaintiff also failed to provide exhibit tabs for

27

its voluminous documents.

28

1

On February 11, defendants filed a supporting declaration. Defendants did not propose

2

narrowly-tailored redactions but rather supported sealing everything plaintiff proposed to be

3

sealed.

4

This order provides guidance regarding how confidentiality should be handled:

5

1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any information designated

6

“confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure. Designations of material as “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only

8

material for which there is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order

9

un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
2.

In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the Court must be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Please

12

limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly-tailored portions of materials for which

13

good cause to seal exists. Please include all other portions of your materials in the public file

14

and clearly indicate therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

15

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are not allowed.

16

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and unredacted —

17

so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief or declaration. Chamber

18

copies should include exhibit tabs. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

19

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like all

20

other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not

21

shredded.

22

4.

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed on

27

summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a

28

“compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good cause.” This will be true
2

1

regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are warned that most summary judgment

2

motions and supporting material should be completely open to public view. Only social security

3

numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a

4

compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

5

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which

6

are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also part of the trial and must likewise

7

be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are

8

liable to be stricken in their entirety.

9

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial will not be

treated in any special manner absent a further order.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

5.

12

*

*

*

By 5:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 20, the parties shall re-file the motions and supporting

13

declarations. The re-filings should comport with the local rules and this order. To be clear,

14

plaintiff had their chance to make their arguments in the motion for leave to amend infringement

15

contentions and may not substantively amend that motion. As fact discovery is set to close on

16

March 25, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend infringement contentions may be noticed for

17

March 20 (the date listed on the sealing motion). Responses and replies are due as if the motion

18

was properly filed on February 11. See Local Rule 7-3.

19

Plaintiff’s motion filed on February 11 indicated that defendants would inform plaintiff

20

by February 14 whether defendants agreed to the motion (Br. 2). Although plaintiff cannot

21

substantively amend their motion, plaintiff may add one sentence indicating defendants response.

22

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer in advance of filing all sealing motions to

23

resolve as many issues as possible in advance of running to the court to ask for everything to be

24

sealed in its entirety.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3