Broadcom Corporation et al v. Netflix, Inc.

Filing 411

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/5/2023. (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.
NETFLIX INC,
Defendant.

11
12

Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD

This order addresses another set of sealing motions, mostly related to material that

13

plaintiffs have claimed as confidential. Dkt. Nos. 302, 318, 331, 346, 364, 373, 378, 401. The

14

Court discussed the applicable standards in a prior sealing order. See Dkt. No. 335 at 1. In sum, a

15

particularized showing of good cause is required to seal documents related to non-dispositive

16

motions, and a compelling reason supported by specific facts is needed before the Court will

17

consider sealing records involving dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

18

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-

19

JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). General assertions of potential competitive or

20

commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact

21

that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order

22

is also not enough to justify sealing.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d

23

1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). The Court’s sealing determinations are stated in the attached chart.

24

See Ex. A.

25

For the sealing requests that are denied, plaintiffs mostly offer perfunctory claims that the

26

documents at issue contain confidential information which should be shielded from public view.

27

For example, they say that certain documents contain “information . . . that is used by Plaintiffs to

28

determine whether to proceed with the patent process” and “proprietary information about

1

Plaintiffs’ invention-disclosure and review procedures.” Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶ 6. Plaintiffs also made

2

conclusory statements about the competitive harm that they will suffer if this information is

3

disclosed. See, e.g., id. (“Public disclosure of such information could unfairly allow competitors

4

to obtain access to Plaintiffs’ internal patent processes. The risk of competitive harm to Plaintiffs,

5

in particular, greatly outweighs the minimal presumption of public access in this situation.”).

6

“Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example do not explain how a

7

competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are insufficient for sealing.”

8

DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 75734, at *1. This is all the more true when the information sought to be

9

sealed appears in an answer to the complaint. See In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. at 1107

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(noting that complaints are “the documents that are the heart of . . . every[] lawsuit”).
The “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for the documents, or portions thereof,

12

that the Court declines to seal. Id. at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are

13

directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant documents on ECF within 7 days of this order.

14

Civ. L.R. 79-5(g).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2023

17
18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal

1
2
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

Document

Information
sought to be sealed

Proffered reason for
sealing

Ruling

Netflix’s
Highlighted
Motion for
portions of pages 6,
Leave to
8, 10, and 11
Amend Answer
to Third
Amended
Complaint, Dkt.
No. 302-3

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ internal
patent applications
and procedures. (See
Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 67)

Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was
more narrowly tailored to seal
highlighted portions of pages 8
and 11, see Dkt. No. 308 at 2;
Dkt. No. 309-1, but they do not
adequately explain how
disclosure of this material
would cause competitive harm.

Exhibit H to
Malhotra Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Motion for
Leave to
Amend, Dkt.
No. 302-4

Entirety

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ internal
patent applications
and procedures. (See
Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 67)

Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was
more narrowly tailored to seal
highlighted portions of pages
65-68, see Dkt. No. 308 at 2,
but they do not adequately
explain how disclosure of this
material would cause
competitive harm.

Exhibit I to
Malhotra Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Motion for
Leave to
Amend, Dkt.
No. 302-4

Entirety

Contains citations and
references to content
that plaintiffs have
designated highly
confidential or
confidential during
discovery. (See Dkt.
No. 302-1 ¶ 3)

Denied. Plaintiffs did not ask
to seal this material in their
response. (See Dkt. No. 308 at
2)

Exhibit K to
Malhotra Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Motion for
Leave to
Amend, Dkt.
No. 302-4

Entirety

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ internal
patent applications
and procedures. (See
Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 67)

Denied. Plaintiffs do not
explain how the form, if
disclosed, could be used by
competitors, or how disclosure
would otherwise cause
competitive harm.

Exhibit N to
Malhotra Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Motion for
Leave to
Amend, Dkt.
No. 302-4

Highlighted
portions of pages
40-43

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ internal
patent applications
and procedures. (See
Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 67)

Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was
more narrowly tailored to seal
highlighted portions of pages
41-43, but they have not
provided an adequate
justification for sealing this
material in connection with an
answer to a complaint.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5

Document

Information
sought to be sealed

Proffered reason for
sealing

Ruling

Plaintiffs’
Highlighted
Response to
portions of pages 8Motion for
9
Leave to
Amend Answer,
Dkt. No. 318-2

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ internal
patent applications
and procedures. (See
Dkt. No. 318-1 ¶¶ 67)

Denied. Plaintiffs do not
adequately explain how
disclosure of this material
would cause competitive harm.

Netflix’s Reply Highlighted
in Support of
portions of pages 3
Motion for
and 5
Leave to
Amend Answer,
Dkt. No. 331-3

Contains citations and
references to content
that plaintiffs have
designated highly
confidential or
confidential during
discovery. (See Dkt.
No. 331-1 ¶ 3)

Denied. No further showing
was made by plaintiffs to
demonstrate why the
highlighted portions of the
answer should be sealed. And,
as discussed above, plaintiffs
did not provide an adequate
justification for sealing related
material.

Netflix’s First
Highlighted
Amended
portions of pages
Answer to
40-43
Plaintiffs’ Third
Amended
Complaint, Dkt.
No. 346-3

Contains citations and
references to content
that plaintiffs have
designated highly
confidential or
confidential during
discovery. (See Dkt.
No. 346-1 ¶ 3)

Denied. No further showing
was made by plaintiffs to
demonstrate why the
highlighted portions of the
answer should be sealed. And,
as discussed above, plaintiffs’
did not provide an adequate
justification for sealing portions
of pages 41-43.

Exhibit A to
Highlighted
Joint Stipulation portions of pages 2,
for Leave to
3, 5, and 6
File Joint
Discovery
Letter Brief,
Dkt. No. 364-3

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ use of its
patent-management
database, revealing
analyses of its patents
for licensing and
assertion purposes.
(See Dkt. No. 368-1
¶¶ 6-8)

Granted. Plaintiffs have
adequately explained that
disclosure of this material could
place it at a competitive
disadvantage in licensing and
asserting their patents.

Joint Discovery
Letter Brief,
Dkt. No. 373-2

Contains confidential
information about
plaintiffs’ use of its
patent-management
database, revealing
analyses of its patents
for licensing and

Granted. Sealing is warranted
for the same reason as Dkt. No.
364-3.

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

Highlighted
portions of pages 2,
3, 5, and 6

4

1

Document

Information
sought to be sealed

Proffered reason for
sealing

Ruling

2
assertion purposes.
(See Dkt. No. 376-1
¶¶ 6-8)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Exhibit I to
Hoyos Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Motion for
Leave to
Amend
Invalidity
Contentions,
Dkt. No. 378-2

Entire document

Contains information
concerning non-party
Oracle’s highly
confidential and
proprietary product
source code. (See
Dkt. No. 388-1 ¶ 3)

Granted in part. Oracle
proposes to seal only certain
redacted portions of pages 25,
37, 42-44, 51-56, 60, 62-63, 69,
71, 73, 81-82, 85-86. Oracle’s
proposal, which is narrowly
tailored to prevent disclosure of
excerpts of its source code, is
approved.

Exhibit J to
Hoyos Decl.
ISO Netflix’s
Opposition to
Motion to
Strike, Dkt. No.
401-2

Entire document

Contains information
concerning non-party
Oracle’s highly
confidential and
proprietary product
source code. (See
Dkt. No. 404-1 ¶ 3)

Granted in part. Oracle
proposes to seal only certain
redacted portions of pages 4244, 54-56, 62-63, 81-82, and 8586. Oracle’s proposal, which is
narrowly tailored to prevent
disclosure of excerpts of its
source code, is approved.

Netflix’s
Opposition to
Motion to
Strike, Dkt. No.
401-3

Highlighted
portions of pages 69

Contains information
concerning non-party
Oracle’s highly
confidential and
proprietary product
source code. (See
Dkt. No. 404-1 ¶ 3)

Granted in part. Oracle
proposes to seal only certain
redacted portions of page 9.
Oracle’s proposal, which is
narrowly tailored to prevent
disclosure of information about
its source code, is approved.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5