Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc.

Filing 166

ORDER RE 100 , 102 , 103 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 119 , 129 , 135 , 138 , 139 , 146 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup. Re-filings due by noon on 9/6/2024. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2024)

1

related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

2

Evidentiary motions, like motions in limine and Daubert motions, can correlate with the

3

merits. Id. at 1098–1100. Indeed, the “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial

4

records.” Id. at 1098 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir.

5

2010), cert. denied sub nom. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. v. Pintos, 562 U.S. 1134 (2011)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Additionally, parties in this district must ensure their sealing motions meet basic

7

adequacy requirements. Above all, they must “narrowly tailor” requests “to seal only the

8

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). And they must list each document or passage to be

9

sealed together with its rationale for sealing. Ibid. For each listed, they must specifically state:

10

(1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that will result

11

should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.

12

Ibid. They must provide evidentiary support where necessary, such as by sworn declaration.

13

Ibid. And, for pleadings, parties must file both redacted and unredacted copies (or ensure

14

another party does) and include in the unredacted copies highlighting to show proposed

15

redactions. Id. at (d)–(e). Failure to follow the rules suggests a lack of cause or interest to

16

seal, and risks summary denial. See id. at (f)(6), (g)(2).

17

Redaction may be appropriate where publication “could result in infringement upon trade

18

secrets.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566

19

U.S. 986 (2012). So too where “business information” might “harm a litigant’s competitive

20

standing,” particularly where the public has “minimal interest” in that information. See

21

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). And, in general, redaction will be

22

appropriate where publication would turn “court files [into] a vehicle for improper purposes,”

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as “to gratify private spite,

24

promote public scandal, [or] circulate libelous statements,” ibid. But “vague boilerplate

25

language or nebulous assertions of potential harm” will not suffice to support redaction.

26

Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019)

27

(citing Civil L.R. 79-5). Nor will mere “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order.” Civil

28

L.R. 79-5(c); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “A party seeking to seal a judicial record
2

1
2
3
4
5

Dkt. No.
138-10
[107-4]
(101-8)

Exh. 7,
Align Memo
Excerpt,
Align-DM
0000350

Blue boxes,
DENIED.

Dkt. No.
138-11
[107-5]
(101-9)

Exh. 8,
Align Memo
Excerpt,
Align-DM
0000044
Exh. 10,
Align
Technical
Document,
Align-DM
0014487
Exh. 11,
Align
Technical
Document,
Align-DM
0014494
Exh. 12,
Expert
Mongan Rpt.
Excerpts

Blue boxes,
GRANTED.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Dkt. No.
138-12
[107-6]
(101-11)
Dkt. No.
138-13
[107-7]
(101-12)

16
17
18
19

Dkt. No.
138-14
[107-8]
(101-13)

Entirety,
GRANTED.

This one-page technical document “read[s] like
[a] ‘how-to’ manual[]” for aspects of Align’s
software (Dkt. No. 138-1 ¶ 7). Redaction is
warranted (see previous entry).

Entirety,
GRANTED.

(See ibid.)

Blue boxes,
GRANTEDIN-PART,
DENIED-INPART.

¶ 133, 156
The proposed redactions include high-level
descriptions as well as excerpts from passages
for which redactions were already rejected
(supra entry re Dkt. No. 138-10). Were there
nuggets here worthy of protection, Align failed
to remove them from the mine run. “[T]he
proponent of sealing bears the burden . . . .”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. DENIED.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dkt. No.

Exh. 13,
Cramer Dep.
Tr. Excerpts

inferred from the equally high-level
descriptions of training processes disclosed
nearby. These proposed redactions are not
credibly Align’s “most sensitive information”
(Dkt. No. 138-1 ¶ 5). DENIED.
The document is an internal memorandum
from two technical experts. In this passage,
however, the experts provide only high-level
descriptions of how the machine learning
works, not the “technical details” Align seeks
to avoid disclosing (see Dkt. No. 138-1 ¶ 6).
This document describes and diagrams
commercially sensitive technical details in far
greater measure than needed for public
understanding (cf. previous entry).

Blue boxes,
GRANTEDIN-PART,

Otherwise
Remaining proposed redactions cover similar
ground as other, unredacted passages. But they
crowd onto that same ground countless,
commercially important technical details,
including function calls and filenames.
Redaction is warranted. GRANTED.
92:6–7, 94:6–7; 119; 122
These proposed redactions are of passages like
others already disclosed. DENIED.
4

1

114-1, 114-2, 121-6, 146) are DENIED AS MOOT. Parties shall refile all documents in

2

accordance with this order BY NOON ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2024.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 29, 2024.

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
10