Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. United Microelectronics Corporation et al

Filing 95

ORDER 64 68 71 DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2019)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS LLC,

No. C 17-04033 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION and UMC GROUP (USA),
Defendants.

/

The parties seek to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for
lack of standing certain portions of the briefing and exhibits in connection with the underlying
motion (Dkt. Nos. 64, 68, 71). The motions are DENIED.
In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when
deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003)). To seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and
the public policies favoring disclosure.” See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted).
Specifically, the parties seek to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss
the patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintiff,
the patent transfer agreement itself, and the amendment thereto (Dkt. Nos. 64 at 2; 68 at 2; 71
at 2). In support of the requests to seal, plaintiff states that the agreement itself “includes a
confidentiality provision at page 12, which provides that the parties to the agreement and their
Affiliates will keep confidential all terms and conditions of the agreement” and claims

1

competitive harm if these terms and conditions are unsealed because they “could be used by

2

competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 67 ¶¶ 5–6; 68-1 ¶¶ 5–6; 74 ¶¶ 4–6). These reasons fail to show a

3

compelling reason.

4

First, the conclusory assertion of competitive harm and boilerplate speculation that the

5

terms and conditions could be used by competitors are far from specific factual findings that

6

overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b)

7

and (d), confidentiality designations and agreements between the parties do not establish that a

8

document is sealable. Third, the requests seek to seal large swaths of briefing and are thus far

9

from “narrowly tailored,” as required under Rule 79-5(b). Fourth, the patent transfer

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

agreement has already been unsealed and publicly disclosed (save for AMD’s bank account

11

information) (see Case No. 18-1680, Dkt. No. 41-1), and the terms have already been publicly

12

discussed in the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No.

13

96 at 3–4, 7, 9–10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the

14

public docket by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: September 28, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2