Altera Corporation v. PACT XPP Technologies, AG

Filing 219

ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 55 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 58 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 72 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting [79 ] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 88 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; and denying 205 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ALTERA CORPORATION,

Case No. 14-cv-02868-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

6
7

PACT XPP TECHNOLOGIES, AG,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 58, 72, 79, 88, 106, 205

Defendant.
8
This order resolves the pending administrative motions to file documents under seal in this

9

case. One of the motions, filed at Dkt. No. 58, is associated with a motion that has since been

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

withdrawn, and is therefore moot. See Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, Dkt. No. 66. Another,

12

filed at Dkt. No. 106, involved a document that the Court had previously given permission to be

13

filed under seal, see Dkt. No. 105, and is therefore granted. The Court rules on the remaining

14

motions, filed at Dkt. Nos. 55, 72, 79, 88, and 205, as set forth below.

15

I.

16

GOVERNING STANDARD
In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on

17

whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive

18

motion.

19

For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

20

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that

21

presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir.

22

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

23

This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more,

24

satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district

25

court must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar

26

Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

27

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

28

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records

1

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of

2

access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-

3

dispositive materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that

4

context, materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized

5

showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180

6

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair

7

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

8

obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013

9

WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-

10

003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s

13

requirement that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are

14

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

15

“sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek

16

sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

17

II.

18
19

DISCUSSION
Each of the pending motions is associated with non-dispositive motions, so the “good

cause” standard applies.
PACT’s January 8, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 55)

20

A.

21

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its motion for leave to

22

amend its infringement contentions, as well as portions of the exhibits, based on the fact that

23

Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” or

24

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” under the protective order in this case.

25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Altera submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the

26

material in question is sealable. See Declaration of Adela Gotz, Dkt. No. 64. The Court rules as

27

follows:

28
2

Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal

Reason Material is
Sealable

1

Document

2

PACT’s Motion
for Leave to
Amend its
Infringement
Contentions

As indicated in the public
Refers to sealable
redacted version of PACT’s material from
Motion for Leave to
exhibits.
Amend its Infringement
Contentions, line 6 of page
4.

Exhibit A to
PACT’s Motion
for Leave to
Amend its
Infringement
Contentions

As indicated in the public
redacted version of Exhibit
A attached to the
Declaration of Kristen E.
Lovin, portions of pages:
37-45; 299-308; 480-488;
599-608; 626-630; 633635; 638-642; 703-704;
706-710; 749-750; 752755; 791-800; 817-819;
823-827; 846-847; 877878; 884-887; 927-935;
955-957; 962-966; 10451054; 1077-1081; 10981102; 1133-1136; 11501158; 1170-1171; 11811189; 1235; 1248-1256;
1269-1270; 1281-1282;
1292-1293; 1304-1307;
1319;1365-1366; 13761377; 1381-1382; 13981399; 1434-1444; 14581462; 1469-1473; 15031505; 1521-1522; 15271536; 1562-1563; 1576;
1584-1585; 1590-1591;
1603-1605; 1614; 16511660; 1677-1681; 16891693; 1720-1723; 1743;
1751-1759; 1786-1787;
1820-1829; 1832-1838;
1894-1899; 1949-1959;
1961-1967; 2029-2035;
2076-2086; 2088-2094;
2163-2169; 2187-2188;
2244-2245; 2250; 2270;
2272-2276; 2355-2356;
2366; 2392-2395; 24432444; 2454; 2484-2487;
2550-2551; 2556; 2585;
2588-2592; 2663-2664;
2674; 2700-2702; 27862787; 2801; 2837-2840;
2895-2896; 2902; 2921;
2923-2927; 3007-3030;

3
4
5
6
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

3

Ruling
Granted.

Information is taken
Granted.
from sensitive internal
product design
documents and
electronic schematic
files whose disclosure
could provide an
unfair advantage to
competitors. See Gotz
Decl. ¶ 3.

3059-3074; 3155-3179;
3211-3228; 3298-3322; and
3349-3365.

1
2
3
4
5

Exhibit G to
PACT’s Motion
for Leave to
Amend its
Infringement
Contentions

As indicated in the public
redacted version of Exhibit
G attached to the
Declaration of Kristen E.
Lovin, portions of pages: 1
and 3.

Internal code names
and file names that
could cause
competitive harm if
disclosed to
competitors or others.
See Gotz Decl. ¶ 4.

Granted.

Exhibit H to
PACT’s Motion
for Leave to
Amend its
Infringement
Contentions

As indicated in the public
redacted version of Exhibit
H attached to the
Declaration of Kristen E.
Lovin, portions of page 1.

Internal code names
and file names that
could cause
competitive harm if
disclosed to
competitors or others.
See Gotz Decl. ¶ 4.

Granted.

6
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

B.

PACT’s January 22, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 72)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its motion to disqualify Dr.
Harry Tredennick, along with the entirety of three transcripts from the deposition of Dr.
Tredennick in PACT XPP Technologies, AG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-563-CE, in the
Eastern District of Texas and Dr. Tredennick’s validity expert report in that case.
PACT says that the material is sealable because third-party Xilinx has designated the
material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order
in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Xilinx submitted a declaration seeking to
establish that the material in question is sealable. See Declaration of Marc Cohen, Dkt. No. 64.
The Court rules as follows:
Document
PACT’s Motion

Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal
As indicated in the public
redacted version of
PACT’s Motion to
Disqualify Dr. Harry
Tredennick and Motion
for Protective Order,
portions of pages: 9, 10,
and 11.

27
28
4

Reason Material is
Sealable
Refers to sealable
material from
exhibits.

Ruling
Denied. The
redacted portions
give a rough
estimate of the
number of hours
spent by Dr.
Tredennick on the
Texas litigation and
prior art references
discussed in his
expert report that
Altera relies on in

this case. Xilinx’s
declaration makes
no showing of good
cause to seal this
information.

1
2
3
4

Exhibit G to
PACT’s Motion

Entire document

Contains Xilinx
proprietary
technical
information and it
would be
burdensome for
non-party Xilinx to
redact only the
confidential
portions.

Granted.
Ordinarily, the
Court would not
permit an entire
document to be
sealed where only
subsets of the
document are
sealable. See Civil
L.R. 79-5(b)
(requests to seal
“must be narrowly
tailored to seek
sealing only of
sealable material”).
But in light of the
fact that Xilinx is a
third party and the
burdens involved in
redacting a
document of this
size, the Court
grants the request.

Exhibit H to
PACT’s Motion

Entire document

Contains Xilinx
proprietary
technical
information and it
would be
burdensome for
non-party Xilinx to
redact only the
confidential
portions.

Granted. See
above.

Exhibit I to
PACT’s Motion

Entire document

Contains Xilinx
proprietary
technical
information and it
would be
burdensome for
non-party Xilinx to
redact only the
confidential
portions.

Granted. See
above.

Exhibit J to
PACT’s Motion

Entire document

Contains Xilinx
proprietary
technical
information and it

Granted. See
above.

5
6
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
5

would be
burdensome for
non-party Xilinx to
redact only the
confidential
portions.

1
2
3
4
5
6

C.

PACT’s January 29, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 79)

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of an Altera interrogatory
response attached to its reply in support of its motion for leave to amend its infringement

7

contentions, based on the fact that Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

8

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local

9
10

Rule 79-5(e), Altera submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the material in question is
sealable. See Declaration of Adela Gotz, Dkt. No. 82. The Court rules as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Document

13

Exhibit M to
PACT’s Reply
in Support of its
Motion for
Leave to Amend
its Infringement
Contentions

14
15
16

Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions of pages 3 and 4,
as indicated in the public
redacted version.

Reason Material is
Sealable

Ruling

Internal project
numbers and product
names that could
cause competitive
harm if disclosed to
competitors or others.
See Gotz Decl. ¶ 3.

Granted. The
motion only seeks
to redact two
columns from an
Altera
interrogatory
response listing
project numbers
and internal
product names.

17
18
19

D.

PACT’s February 12, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 88)

20

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of its reply in support of its

21

motion to disqualify Dr. Harry Tredennick. PACT says that the material is sealable because third-

22

party Xilinx has designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES

23

ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Xilinx

24

submitted a declaration seeking to establish that the material in question is sealable. See

25

Declaration of Marc Cohen, Dkt. No. 93. The Court rules as follows:

26
27
28
6

1

Document

2

PACT’s Reply

3
4

Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal
As indicated in the public
redacted version of
PACT’s Reply, portions
of pages 1 and 3-6.

Reason Material is
Sealable
Refers to sealable
material from
exhibits.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Ruling
Denied. The
redacted portions
give a rough
estimate of the
number of hours
spent by Dr.
Tredennick on the
Texas litigation,
objections made by
PACT’s counsel
during his
deposition in the
Texas litigation, and
other non-sensitive
testimony. The
information redacted
at Dkt. No. 89 at
2:12 was already
filed in the public
record at Dkt. No.
73 at 1:19. Xilinx’s
declaration does not
discuss, much less
show good cause to
seal, this specific
information.

16

A. PACT’s July 27, 2015, Motion (Dkt. No. 205)

17

PACT’s administrative motion to seal seeks to seal portions of a discovery letter brief,

18

based on the fact that Altera designated the material “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

19

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” under the protective order in this case. Altera has not filed the

20

supporting declaration necessary under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to maintain this information

21

under seal, so the Court denies the motion.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION

3

To the extent an administrative motions to file under seal discussed in this order was

4

denied with respect to a document, PACT should file an unredacted version of the document

5

within 7 days of this order, except with respect to the administrative motion to file under seal at

6

Dkt. No. 205. With respect to that motion, PACT should file the document in the public record no

7

earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from the date of this order, pursuant to Civil Local

8

Rule 79-5(e)(2).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8