Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc. v. Emerging Markets Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 339

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 324 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
12
v.

No. C-09-02180 SBA (DMR)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO FILE
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
[DOCKET NO. 324]

13
14
15

E M E R G I N G
M A R K E T S
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL,
Defendants.

16
___________________________________/
17
18

The court has reviewed the letters submitted by the parties in response to the court’s March

19

12, 2012 Order requiring Defendants ViaSat, Inc., Teledyne Paradise Datacom, LLC and/or Plaintiff

20

Applied Signal Technology (“AST”) to explain why the privilege logs attached as Exhibit A to the

21

parties’ joint discovery letter dated February 24, 2012 should be filed under seal in its entirety.

22

[Docket Nos. 333 (“AST’s letter brief”), 334.]

23

The Ninth Circuit set forth applicable standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v.

24

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, court records may

25

only be sealed for “compelling reasons.” Id. at 1178. However, the court has “carved out an

26

exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed discovery document [attached]

27

to a non-dispositive motion, such that the usual presumption of the public’s right to access is

28

rebutted.” Id. at 1179 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). These

1

materials may be sealed upon a “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (stating that if “good

3

cause” is shown in discovery, a court may issue “any order which justice requires to protect a party

4

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”).

5

Here, the court finds that the joint discovery letter dated February 24, 2012 contains

accordingly should be filed in part under seal. However, the parties have failed to establish that

8

good cause exists to seal AST’s and Comtech’s privilege logs in their entirety. AST asserts that the

9

privilege logs disclose the “‘who’, ‘what,’ and ‘when’ of AST’s and Comtech’s consultations with

10

attorneys on myriad legal issues, as well as internal communications regarding the same.” (AST’s

11

letter brief 1.) Yet the entries on the privilege logs contain only the most generic descriptions of

12

unnamed, unspecified patents and other subject matter of the documents for which AST claims

13

privilege (e.g., “Communication with Pav Athwal re License issue,” “Communication with Kenneth

14

Booth re patent issues,” and “Communication with Rick Bryson re litigation”). The entries do not

15

contain legal advice or opinions formed by Plaintiffs’ counsel and therefore are not protectable.

16

Further, although Plaintiffs assert that the privilege logs reveal information such as “the fact, for

17

example, that AST and Comtech were consulting attorneys regarding AST’s and third-parties’ IP

18

related to the products in this suit” (AST’s letter brief 1), they have failed to establish that this

19

information is “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

20

the law.” N.D. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for administrative relief

21

[Docket No. 324] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Defendants’ request

22

to file portions of the joint discovery letter dated February 24, 2012 under seal is GRANTED.

23

Defendants’ request to seal Exhibit A to the joint discovery letter is DENIED.

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

Dated: March 14, 2012

RT

H

ER

2

FO

u
a M. Ry
e Donn
Judg

NO

28

LI

27

R NIA

D
RDERE
S SO O
IT I
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

26

A

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

24

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

confidential and proprietary business information of AST’s which is protectable as trade secrets, and

7

United States District Court

6

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C