Johnstech International Corp. v. JF Technology Berhad et al

Filing 249

ORDER by Judge James Donato re 180 and 199 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Plaintiff,

8

JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 199

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RE
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v.

9
10

Case No. 14-cv-02864-JD

12
In this patent action, plaintiff Johnstech International Corp. (“Johnstech”) and defendant JF

13
14

Microtechnology SDN BHD (“JFM”) filed administrative motions to seal exhibits attached to

15

JFM’s first motion in limine and Johnstech’s opposition to the motion under Civil Local Rule 79-

16

5(d). JFM’s motion in limine sought to exclude underlying sales data and corresponding lost

17

profit damages calculation. Dkt. No. 186. The motion was denied, and portions of the exhibits

18

and underlying evidence were admissible at trial to prove Johnstech’s damages. Dkt. No. 206.

19

The Court grants and denies the requests to seal the exhibits as detailed in this order.

20

I.

21

STANDARDS
In our circuit, a party seeking to seal trial evidence must establish “compelling reasons” to

22

overcome a historically “strong presumption of access to judicial records.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc.,

23

298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to trial

24

exhibits); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

25

2006). Compelling reasons exist when the information sought to be sealed releases trade secrets

26

or may be used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive

27

standing.” In re Elec. Arts, 298 Fed. Appx. at 569-70 (quotation omitted); see also Apple Inc. v.

28

Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applying this standard and sealing

1

“detailed product-specific financial information” and “profit, cost, and margin data” that “could

2

give the suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations, which they could use to extract price

3

increases for components”). However, “[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege,

4

without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the

5

burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. In particular, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair

6

advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to

7

obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD,

8

2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015) (quoting Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-

9

01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)). While not all the sales data at
issue here was shown at trial, the Court finds the compelling standard met for the supported

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

requests and does not address the lesser standard that could potentially apply. See In re Midland

12

Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); Apple, 727

13

F.3d at 1222 (“we are not aware of any Ninth Circuit precedent applying the ‘compelling reasons’

14

standard to non-dispositive motions regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial.”).

15

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek

16

sealing only of sealable material,” and “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are

17

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

18

L.R. 79-5(b). When ordering sealing, the district court must “articulate the rationale underlying its

19

decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

20

II.

DETERMINATIONS
This table summarizes the administrative motions to seal that the Court addresses:

21
22
23
24

Motion
(Dkt. No.)
180

25
26

199

Documents Sought to be Sealed (by Dkt. No.)
186-11 and 186-15: Exhibits K and O of Shawn G.
Hansen Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion in
Limine
200-4 and 200-7: Exhibit 4 and 7 of the Hall Declaration
in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion in Limine

27
28
2

Party Declaration in
Support (by Dkt. No.)
203

204

1

A. Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Declaration in Support of
JFM’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 180)

2

JFM states that it filed these documents under seal because they were designated

3

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” by Johnstech or third party IDI

4

under the protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 180. Johnstech filed a declaration with facts

5

supporting the sealing request for Exhibit K. Dkt. No. 203. IDI did not file a declaration as

6

required by Local Rule 79-5(e).

7

Document

Johnstech’s Response
(Dkt. No. 203)

Ruling

186-11
(Exhibit K)

Exhibit K is an expert report
with nonpublic financial
information about Johnstech’s
sales and profits related to
specific customers. Johnstech
seeks to seal certain redacted
portions of the report as shown
in Dkt. No. 203-1, and the
attached Appendix documents in
their entirety.
No response.

Granted in part. Sealed to the extent it
contains detailed sales information for
customers that could be used to the
company’s competitive disadvantage.
See Apple, 727 F.3d at 1226-28. The
request to seal redacted portions in Dkt.
No. 203-1 is granted. The request is
denied otherwise.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

186-15
(Exhibit O)

16
17
18
19
20

Denied. The parties have not provided
adequate justification for sealing this
document. IDI has not filed any
declaration in support of sealing as
required by the Local Rule.

B. Johnstech’s Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Declaration in
Opposition of JFM’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 199)
Johnstech filed a motion to seal Exhibits 4 and 7 to Daniel Hall’s Declaration in

21

Opposition to JFM’s motions in limine because the Exhibit materials were designated

22

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” by Johnstech and JFM under the

23

protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 199-1. JFM filed a declaration addressing Exhibit 4,

24

which is the full version of the expert report found in Exhibit K above. Dkt. No. 204.

25
26
27
28
3

1
2

Document
200-4

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Document
200-7

JFM’s Response
(Dkt. No. 204)
Exhibit 4, as redacted, contains
highly confidential business
information, including information
about the identities and sales made
to specific customers. JFM seeks to
seal certain redacted portions of the
report as shown in Dkt. No. 199-4,
and the Appendix documents in
their entirety.

Ruling

Johnstech’s Argument
(Dkt. No. 199)
Exhibit 7 contains detailed
information regarding sales of
Johnstech’s products spanning
multiple years. Johnstech seeks to
seal the entire one-page chart, as it
could be used by others to obtain an
unfair advantage in competition
and/or negotiations with Johnstech.

Ruling

Granted. The exhibit details
product-specific customer data that
could be used to the company’s
competitive disadvantage and the
redactions are narrowly tailored to
seal this information. See Apple,
727 F.3d at 1228. The request to
seal redacted portions in Dkt. No.
199-4 is granted.

Granted. The one page exhibit
details product-specific sales data
that could be used to the company’s
competitive disadvantage. See
Apple, 727 F.3d at 1228.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
Within fourteen days of this order, JFM should file Exhibit K with revised redactions, as

16

necessary to comply with this order, in the public record of this case. If JFM does not file a copy

17

by this deadline, the Court will unseal the version previously filed in this matter. For Exhibit O,

18

JFM may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days

19

under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2).

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2017

22
23
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4