TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

Filing 213

ORDER SEALING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/19/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TVIIM, LLC,

Case No. 13-cv-04545-HSG
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER SEALING CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS

v.
9
10

MCAFEE, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On June 10, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying certain administrative motions to file

13

documents under seal. Dkt. No. 171. On June 15, 2015, pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendant

14

filed supplemental declarations in support of the motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 173-76. On June 17,

15

2015, the Court issued an Order sealing certain of the documents and directing Defendant to

16

submit highlighted unredacted versions of the remaining documents, which Defendant timely

17

submitted. Dkt. No. 205.

18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives

20

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

21

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

22

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in

23

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

24

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

25

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record

26

related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

27

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

28

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.”

1

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general,

2

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

3

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’

4

such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

5

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact

6

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

7

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

9

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

10

certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule

12

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file

13

a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof,

14

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .

15

The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

16

5(b).

17

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

18

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

19

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”

20

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

21

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”

22

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

23

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

24

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad

25

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not

26

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

27
28
2

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

3

Defendant’s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal In Support Of
Its Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
On March 23, 2015, Defendant filed an administrative motion to file under seal exhibit 14

4
5
6

to the declaration of Joseph J. Mueller in support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 128. Because Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is a
dispositive motion, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard.

7
In the amended declaration of Laurie Charrington in support of its motion to seal, and the
8
accompanying exhibits lodged with the Court, Defendant identifies those specific portions of the
9
exhibit that contain sealable information. Dkt. No. 174. Those portions contain information
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

regarding Defendant’s “product design, structural components, and functionality.” Id. ¶ 6. The
Court finds that Defendant’s proposed redactions of exhibit 14 to the declaration of Joseph J.
Mueller in support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment are
“narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

14
Defendant shall publicly file redacted versions of those documents by June 22, 2015.
15
16
17

B.

Defendant’s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal In Support of
Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Exclude Certain Expert
Testimony Of Lance Gunderson
On March 23, 2015, Defendant filed an administrative motion to file under seal exhibits 1-

18
2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 18-19, 22-27, and 30 to the declaration of Joseph J. Mueller in support of
19
20
21

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain expert testimony of Lance
Gunderson, as well as portions of the opposition. Dkt. No. 130. Because Plaintiff’s motion to
exclude testimony is not a dispositive motion, the Court applies the “good cause” standard.

22
In the amended declaration of Laurie Charrington in support of its motion to seal, and the
23
accompanying exhibits lodged with the Court, Defendant identifies those specific portions of
24
exhibits 2, 4, 18-19, 22-26, and 30 that contain sealable information. Dkt. No. 175. Those
25
26
27

portions contain information regarding confidential “financial information,” “business and
marketing strategies, “product development strategies,” “product design choices,” “internal release
timelines,” “source code,” and “product testing.” Dkt. No. 175 ¶¶ 6-15. The Court finds that

28
3

1

Defendant’s proposed redactions of exhibits 2, 4, 18-19, 22-26, and 30 to the declaration of Joseph

2

J. Mueller in support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain expert

3

testimony of Lance Gunderson, as well as portions of the opposition itself, are “narrowly tailored”

4

to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Defendant shall publicly file

5

redacted versions of those documents by June 22, 2015.

6
7
8

C.

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal In Support Of
Its Reply In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion To Exclude Certain Expert Testimony
Of Lance Gunderson
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal exhibits A,

B, and C to the declaration of John Shaeffer in support of Plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion

10

to exclude certain expert testimony of Lance Gunderson, as well as portions of the reply. Dkt. No.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

137. Because Plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony is not a dispositive motion, the Court

12

applies the “good cause” standard.

13

In the amended declaration of Laurie Charrington in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal,

14

and the accompanying exhibits lodged with the Court, Defendant identifies those specific portions

15

of exhibits A, B, and C that contain sealable information. Dkt. No. 176. Those portions contain

16

information regarding Defendant’s “product beta testing, design choices and considerations,

17

planned improvements, and internal design feedback,” as well as “certain features of

18

[Defendant’s] products and reasons for [their] inclusion.” Id. ¶¶ 6-8. The Court finds that

19

Defendant’s proposed redactions of exhibits A, B, and C to the declaration of John Shaeffer in

20

support of Plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion to exclude certain expert testimony of Lance

21

Gunderson, as well as portions of the reply itself, are “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable

22

material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Defendant shall publicly file redacted versions of

23

those documents by June 22, 2015.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
4