Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 159

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND MOTION TO INTERVENE (denying (128) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (135) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (140) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (146) Motion to Intervene in case 3:18-cv-00363-WHA; denying (134) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (141) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (146) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (152) Motion to Intervene in case 3:18-cv-00360-WHA; denying (158) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (165) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (170) Administrative Mot ion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (176) Motion to Intervene in case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA; denying (148) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (155) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying (160) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (166) Motion to Intervene in case 3:18-cv-00572-WHA). Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. C 18-00360 WHA
No. C 18-00363 WHA
No. C 18-00365 WHA
No. C 18-00572 WHA

Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

UNILOC USA, INC.; and UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
SEAL AND MOTION TO
INTERVENE

v.
APPLE INC.,

14

/

15
16

In connection with the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, both

17

sides filed administrative motions to file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 134, 141, 146).* Here,

18

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of

19

access and the public policies favoring disclosure” are required to justify sealing. Ctr. for Auto

20

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006).

22

Each of the aforementioned administrative motions seeks to seal information based on

23

plaintiffs’ confidentiality designations. Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations claim that the

24

documents contain “confidential and proprietary information related to financial data, licensing

25

terms and business plans with respect to various Uniloc entities” and that disclosure of such

26

information “would create a substantial risk of serious harm to the Uniloc entities” (e.g., Dkt.

27

No. 137 ¶ 4). This, by itself, fails to show a compelling reason to justify sealing.

28
*

The docket numbers referenced herein relate to Case No. C 18-00360 WHA.

1

First, the declarations provide no further explanation regarding why or how public

2

disclosure of this information could cause commercial harm. Plaintiffs’ generalized assertion of

3

potential competitive harm fails to outweigh the public’s right to learn of the ownership of the

4

patents-in-suit — which grant said owner the right to publicly exclude others. This is especially

5

true given that the law has developed regarding standing issues, which turns on machinations

6

such as those at issue in the instant actions. Second, the scope of plaintiffs’ requests is

7

astonishing. Plaintiffs seek to seal the majority of exhibits and large swaths of briefing and

8

declarations. Even a cursory review reveals that plaintiffs’ requested redactions contain non-

9

sealable material. As one non-exhaustive example, plaintiffs seek to redact portions of
defendant Apple Inc.’s motion that simply quote Federal Circuit law (e.g., Dkt. No. 134-4 at

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

15). The requests are thus far from “narrowly tailored” as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).

12

In short, plaintiffs’ supporting declarations fail to justify sealing of the aforementioned

13

information. Accordingly, these administrative motions are DENIED. Plaintiffs have TWO

14

WEEKS

15

shall file unredacted versions of their documents on the public docket by FEBRUARY 8 AT

16

NOON.

to seek appellate review of this order to obtain redactions, failing which each movant

17
18

*

*

*

In light of this order’s ruling on the administrative motions to file under seal, proposed

19

intervenor Electronic Frontier Foundation’s motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 152) is GRANTED for

20

the purpose of opposing plaintiffs at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

21

in the event plaintiffs seek appellate review of this order. Proposed intervenor’s motion is

22

otherwise DENIED.

23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25

Dated: January 17, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2