TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

Filing 288

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 283 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Trial Transcripts (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2015)

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 GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.
9
10

MCAFEE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 283

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On July 30, 2015, Defendant McAfee, Inc. filed an administrative motion to seal portions

13
14

of the trial transcripts in this case. Dkt. No. 283. The time to oppose the motion to seal has

15

passed.

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

II.

DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks to seal certain portions of the trial transcripts that disclose its “highly

16
17

sensitive, product-specific financial information, including . . . profit margin, average sales price,

18

and unit sales information.” Dkt. No. 283 at 1. On July 19, 2015, the Court ordered that certain

19

trial demonstratives containing the same financial information be sealed. See Dkt. No. 259 at 6-7.

20

In the pending motion to seal, Defendant argues that the “compelling reasons” standard is met here

21

because the portions of the transcripts sought to be sealed reference already-sealed information in

22

the trial demonstratives, and because the Ninth Circuit has held that financial information like that

23

at issue here constitutes “trade secrets.” Dkt. No. 283 at 2.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

The Court agrees that the proposed redactions of the trial transcripts contain sealable

2

material. The Court further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only

3

sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court therefore GRANTS

4

Defendant’s motion to seal the identified portions of the trial transcripts. See Dkt. No. 283-3

5

(proposing the redaction of certain information contained in pages 758:13, 758:17, 758:20, 759:6,

6

759:13, 759:14, 762:8, 766:2, 766:11, 772:4, 772:14, 772:15, 772:16, 1238:13, 1240:16).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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