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)

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 Translations.com, 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