Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 78

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg Moot as to 39 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 54 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 61 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 72 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,
INC.,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 14-0876 RS
ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

STRYKER CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18

In this patent infringement action, four separate motions for leave to file materials under seal

19

are currently pending. (ECF Nos. 39, 54, 61, and 72). Each motion pertains to defendants’ Answer,

20

three versions of which have been lodged in this case. In particular, defendants seek to seal certain

21

information regarding the terms of a prior settlement between the parties.

22

The commentary to Civil Local Rule 79-5, which governs such motions, notes that, “[a]s a

23

public forum, the Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to documents filed with

24

the Court.” There is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records” in both civil and

25

criminal matters. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). As

26

such, court records may only be sealed for “compelling reasons.” See Kamakana v. City & County

27

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 79-5 is designed to ensure that, when sealing is

28

warranted, a redacted copy is filed and available for public review that has the minimum redactions

1

necessary to protect sealable information.” See Commentary to Civil L. R. 79-5 (emphasis added).

2

Accordingly, parties must give particularized consideration to each exhibit or document prior to

3

requesting that it be sealed, whether in its entirety or through redactions.

4

Defendants’ first motion to seal (ECF No. 39) is too broad. Instead of targeting discrete

5

pieces of sensitive information, it seeks to redact pages of non-sealable content from the Answer. It

6

also requests the court seal the prior settlement agreement in its entirety. That motion was

7

superseded, however, by a more narrowly-tailored motion (ECF No. 61) containing only “the

8

minimum redactions necessary” to ensure the confidential settlement information is shielded from

9

public view. See id. Defendants’ other sealing motions (ECF Nos. 54 and 72) are similarly tailored

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and supported by declarations explaining why sealing is appropriate.
Three of defendants’ four sealing motions (ECF Nos. 54, 61, and 72) are hereby granted.

12

Defendants’ first sealing motion (ECF No. 39), which was superseded and is now moot, is

13

terminated.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 8/4/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2