Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 185

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying without prejudice 108 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying without prejudice 152 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE LTD.,,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.

9
10

ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 108, 152

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-04525-EMC (DMR)

12

Before the court are two motions to seal by Plaintiff Avago Technologies General IP

13

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“Avago”), joined by Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS

14

Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”). [Docket Nos. 108, 152.] The parties seek to seal

15

Exhibit 10 to the Holohan Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No.

16

108-3], and Exhibit 1 to the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter Brief. [Docket No. 152-3]. Avago

17

asserts that both exhibits consist entirely of pages from ASUS’s interrogatory responses that

18

ASUS has designated as “Restricted—Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Docket Nos. 108-1 at ¶ 4, 152,

19

152-1.1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79–5(b), orders to seal “may issue only upon a request that

20
21

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

22

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) a

23

district court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

24

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A

25

particularized showing of good cause will “suffice [] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed

26
1

27
28

Avago moved to file the exhibits under seal because ASUS had designated the information
contained in the exhibits as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. As the designating party,
ASUS was then required to file a declaration establishing that all of the designated material is
sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

1

discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions,” such as this discovery motion.

2

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations

3

omitted). All requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable

4

information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil L. R. 79–5(b).
ASUS has filed the Lee Declaration,2 [Docket No. 171], which generally states that the

5
6

interrogatory responses in the exhibits at issue contain confidential and/or proprietary information

7

related to ASUS’s products that are not disclosed publically as part of its business. Lee Decl. ¶ 3.

8

This is insufficient to establish the “good cause” standard, as well as the “narrowly tailored”

9

standard, because it requests that the entire exhibits be sealed, instead of specifying targeted
sealable information within each exhibit. For example, the Lee Declaration states that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interrogatory responses 25 and 26 are sealable because they identify ASUS’s third-party

12

OEM/EMS vendors and component suppliers. While the specific identities of vendors and

13

suppliers may be subject to protection, other information contained in the discovery response is

14
15

not, such as ASUS’s objections, or references to Bates ranges of documents and ASUS’s
publically accessible website.
Therefore, Avago’s motions to file under seal [Docket Nos. 108 and 152] are denied

16
17
18
19
20
21

without prejudice. Within one week of this order, ASUS shall file a declaration in support of each
of Avago’s motions to file under seal [Docket Nos. 108 and 152] establishing that certain
designated material is sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). The declarations shall
comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) and should be narrowly tailored
to only seek redaction of sealable material. Because ASUS’s declarations will not be seeking to
seal the exhibits in their entirety, ASUS shall also file a proposed order with each declaration that

22
///
23
///
24
///
25

///

26
27
28

2

Although the Lee Declaration [Docket No. 171] only seeks to seal certain information in Exhibit
1 [Docket No. 152], the court will construe it as seeking to seal the identical information contained
in Exhibit 10 [Docket No. 108-1.].
2

1

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and that lists in table format each document

2

or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B).

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

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