Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Toshiba Corporation et al

Filing 241

ORDER DENYING 194 204 208 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS
LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 17-04034 WHA

v.

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

TOSHIBA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for

18

lack of standing certain portions of the briefing and exhibits in connection with the underlying

19

motion (Dkt. Nos. 194, 204, 208). The motions are DENIED.

20

In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

21

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

22

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To

23

seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons

24

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

25

policies favoring disclosure.” See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted).

26

Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss the

27

patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintif, the

28

patent transfer agreement itself, and the amendment thereto (Dkt. Nos. 194 at 1; 204 at 2; 208 a
2). In support of the requests to seal, plaintiff states that the agreement itself “includes a

1

confidentiality provision at page 12, which provides that the parties to the agreement and their

2

Affiliates will keep confidential all terms and conditions of the agreement” and claims

3

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

4

competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 197 ¶¶ 5–6; 204-1 ¶¶ 5–6; 211 ¶¶ 4–6). These reasons fail to show a

5

compelling reason.

6

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

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

9

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

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

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

8

United States District Court

7

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

12

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

13

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

14

the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No. 96 at 3–4, 7,

15

9–10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the public docket

16

by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 28, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2