TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 248

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART 244 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., et al. 5 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 244) v. 7 MOTIONPOINT CORP., 8 Defendant. ________________________________/ 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. C 10-2590 CW Plaintiffs Transperfect Global, Inc., Transperfect 11 Translations, Inc., and, Inc. seek leave to file 12 under seal portions of Joseph H. Lee’s declaration in support of 13 their opening claim construction brief and motion for summary 14 judgment. 15 these documents should be filed under seal. 16 The parties have filed a stipulation agreeing that Docket No. 245. The Lee declaration is connected with a dispositive motion. 17 Thus, to establish that portions of the declaration are sealable, 18 Plaintiffs “must overcome a strong presumption of access by 19 showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 20 findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the 21 public policies favoring disclosure.’” 22 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 23 Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) states that a “stipulation . . . will not 24 suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” 25 requires that every sealing request “be narrowly tailored to seek 26 sealing only of sealable material.” 27 28 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors It further Civil L.R. 79-5(a). Having reviewed the Declaration of L. Okey Onyejekwe filed in support of the motion to seal, the Court finds that Plaintiffs 1 have demonstrated compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 16 and 17 of 2 the Lee declaration, which contain proprietary information about 3 Transperfect’s business operations and technology. 4 Plaintiffs have not, however, established compelling reasons for sealing in full Exhibits 13, 14, and 15 of the Lee 6 declaration, which contain various expert reports. 7 certain parts of these reports may be sealable, significant 8 portions of them are not. 9 Ex. 15, at 1-4 (describing experts’ qualifications, compensation 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 rates, and prior testimony in other cases); Ex. 13, at 4-7; Ex. 11 14, at 2-6; Ex. 15, at 5-6 (summarizing experts’ understandings of 12 legal standards); Ex. 13, at 7-22; Ex. 14, at 6-25; Ex. 15, at 7- 13 21 (describing background technology or other publicly available 14 information from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office). 15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ blanket assertion that these reports 16 contain “confidential and proprietary information regarding the 17 technical details of [Transperfect] products,” Onyejekwe Decl. 18 ¶¶ 5-7, does not justify sealing these reports in their entirety. 19 Courts in this district are typically reluctant to permit the 20 sealing of expert reports without a more detailed explanation of 21 how the parties would be harmed by their disclosure. 22 Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 2012 WL 6019754, at *3 (N.D. 23 Cal.) (“To the extent that Defendants contend that these [expert 24 reports] must be sealed because the descriptions of Defendants’ 25 accused products constitute trade secrets, Defendants have not 26 identified any details to support such a designation.”); Abaxis, 27 Inc. v. Cepheid, 2012 WL 3255600, at *3 (N.D. Cal.) (“[I]f [the 28 plaintiff] seeks to seal trade secrets contained in any portion of Although See, e.g., Lee Decl., Ex. 13, at 1-4; 2 See, e.g., 1 Dr. William’s expert report . . ., [the plaintiff] must submit a 2 narrowly tailored motion.”). 3 4 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal (Docket No. 244) is GRANTED in part and 6 DENIED in part. 7 seal Exhibits 16 and 17 of the Lee declaration. 8 of this order, Plaintiffs shall file Exhibits 13, 14, and 15 of 9 the Lee declaration in the public record or file a renewed motion 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 to seal, accompanied by a supporting declaration, that identifies 11 the specific portions of those documents that are “privileged or 12 protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 13 under the law.” 14 15 16 The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file under Within one week Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The parties’ stipulation (Docket No. 245) is APPROVED insofar as it conforms with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 Dated: 1/17/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?