TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

Filing 218

ORDER SEALING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/23/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

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
On June 16, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying certain administrative motions to file

12
13

documents related to the parties’ motions in limine under seal. Dkt. No. 184. On June 18, 2015,

14

pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendant filed supplemental declarations in support of the motions

15

to seal. Dkt. Nos. 209-10.

16

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

6

The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

7

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

8

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

9

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule
79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

5(b).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

Because motions in limine are nondispositive motions, the Court applies the “good cause”
standard to the subject documents.

27
28
2

1

II.

2

DISCUSSION
A.

3

Defendant’s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal In Support
Of Its Motion In Limine No. 1

4

On June 9, 2015, Defendant filed an administrative motion to file under seal exhibits 2 and

5

3 to the declaration of Joseph J. Mueller in support of Defendant’s motion in limine No. 1, as well

6

as portions of the motion in limine. Dkt. No. 163.
In the amended declaration of Christine Capuyan in support of its motion to seal, and the

7
8

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

9

exhibits 2 and 3, and Defendant’s motion in limine No. 1, that contain sealable information. Dkt.
No. 209. Those portions contain information regarding “highly confidential McAfee patent,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

software, and/or technology licensing information” that “could be used by McAfee’s competitors

12

to McAfee’s disadvantage, particularly because it reveals McAfee’s licensing history.” Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

13

The Court finds that these reasons constitute “good cause” to seal the documents. Furthermore,

14

the Court finds that Defendant’s proposed redactions of exhibits 2 and 3 are “narrowly tailored” to

15

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

16

redacted versions of those documents by June 25, 2015.

17

B.

18

Defendant’s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal In Support
Of Its Motion In Limine No. 2

19

On June 9, 2015, Defendant filed an administrative motion to file under seal exhibit 3 to

20

the declaration of Joseph J. Mueller in support of Defendant’s motion in limine No. 2. Dkt. No.

21

164.

22

In the amended declaration of Christine Capuyan in support of its motion to seal, and the

23

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

24

exhibit 3 that contain sealable information. Dkt. No. 210. Those portions contain information

25

regarding “product design choice” that “could be used by [Defendant’s] competitors to

26

[Defendant’s] disadvantage, particularly because it reveals [Defendant’s] proprietary technical

27

information.” Id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that these reasons constitute “good cause” to seal the

28

documents. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant’s proposed redactions of exhibit 3 are
3

1

“narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

2

Defendant shall publicly file redacted versions of those documents by June 25, 2015.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
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
4