THX, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 233

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. RE ADMINISTRATIVE( 201 , 209 , 216 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL (granting in part and denying in part 201 ; granting 209 ; denying 216 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.
9
10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 201, 209, 216

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pending before the Court are three administrative motions to file under seal related to a

13

motion to supplement the claim construction record (“Motion to Supplement”) brought by Slot

14

Speaker Technologies, Inc. (“SST”). Dkt. Nos. 201, 209, 216.

15

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

16

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

17

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

18

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

19

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

20

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

21

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

22

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

23

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

24

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79

25

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

26

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

27

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

28

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

1

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must

2

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

3

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

4

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

5

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal

6

quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

7
8

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

9

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request

10

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

12

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

13

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must

14

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at

15

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or

16

harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

17

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

18

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

19

II.

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the Motion to

20
21

Supplement has more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. The Court rules as

22

follows:

23

Motion
201

24
25
26

Document
Motion to Supplement

Ruling
Reason
GRANTED as to pp. 1:15; Confidential business
2:10-12; 2:15; 2:19; 2:21; information.
3:1; 3:9; 3:13-19; 3:22;
3:28; 4:1-11; 4:19; 4:27;
5:7; 5:17-18; 5:26.1

27
1

28

The Court grants the motion to seal these lines as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of
Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-2.
2

1

DENIED as to remainder.

2
3

201

4

201

5

201

6
201
7
201

8
9

201

10

209

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
216

13

Mot. to Supplement, Ex. A

GRANTED.

Mot. to Supplement, Ex. B

GRANTED.

Mot. to Supplement, Ex. E

GRANTED as to pp. 811.2

Mot. to Supplement, Ex. H1
Mot. to Supplement, Ex. H3
Mot. to Supplement, Ex. J
Exhibit 2 to the Declaration
of Christine C. Capuyan in
Support of Apple’s
Opposition to Mot. to
Supplement
Reply in Support of Mot. to
Supplement

DENIED.
DENIED.
GRANTED as to pp. 811.3

Not supported by
declaration.
Confidential business
information.
Confidential business
information.
Confidential business
information.
Not supported by
declaration.
Not supported by
declaration.
Confidential business
information.

GRANTED.

Confidential business
information.

DENIED.

No declaration in support
submitted.

14
III.

CONCLUSION

15
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), SST must file the necessary revised redacted

16
17

versions of the documents listed in the chart above within 7 days.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from

18
19

this Order, SST must also file unredacted versions of (i) Exhibits H-1 and H-3 to the Motion to

20

Supplement and (ii) the Reply in Support of the Motion to Supplement.

21

The Court will be unable to consider the documents unless SST files revised versions.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: December 28, 2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
2

27
28

The Court grants the motion to seal these pages as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of
Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-3.
3
The Court grants the motion to seal these pages as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of
Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-4.
3