TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 318

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART TRANSPERFECTS 288 MOTION TO SEAL; DENYING MOTIONPOINTS 296 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.,
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INT’L,
INC., and TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

v.

8

MOTIONPOINT CORP.,

9

Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 10-2590 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART
TRANSPERFECT’S
MOTION TO SEAL;
DENYING
MOTIONPOINT’S
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket Nos. 288 &
296)

11

Plaintiffs Transperfect Global, Inc., Transperfect

12

Translations International, Inc., and Translations.com, Inc.

13

(collectively, Transperfect) move to seal portions of their

14

motions in limine and several exhibits in support thereof.

15

addition, Defendant MotionPoint Corporation moves to seal portions

16

of several exhibits in support of its motions in limine as well as

17

several exhibits in support of its trial brief.

18

the parties’ submissions, the Court grants Transperfect’s motion

19

to seal in part and denies it in part and denies MotionPoint’s

20

motion to seal.

21

I.

In

After reviewing

Transperfect’s Motion to Seal

22

A.

23

The public interest favors filing all court documents in the

Excerpts of Motions in Limine

24

public record.

25

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

26

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

27

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

28

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

Thus, any party seeking to file a document under
Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

1

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

2

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

3

file each document under seal.

4

See Civil Local Rule 79–5(a).

Here, Transperfect has not provided good cause for redacting

5

the excerpts on page 20 of its motions in limine.

6

it has failed to explain why its alleged efforts to acquire

7

MotionPoint more than five years ago should be shielded from

8

public view today.

9

Specifically,

Transperfect has also failed to justify redacting the excerpt

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

on page 12 of its motions in limine.

11

states that this excerpt “describes confidential aspects of

12

MotionPoint’s technologies which MotionPoint has requested be kept

13

confidential so as not to harm its competitive interests.”

14

Declaration of L. Okey Onyejekwe ¶ 3.1

15

not describe any aspect of MotionPoint’s technology, confidential

16

or otherwise; rather, it summarizes one expert’s view of the

17

relationship between MotionPoint’s patents and prior art.

18

information is not sealable.

19

Its supporting declaration

In fact, the excerpt does

This

Transperfect’s request to seal the excerpts on page 10 of its

20

motions in limine is granted because it has provided good cause

21

for sealing this content.

22

B.

23

Transperfect has not provided good cause for sealing Exhibits

Gabriel Gross’s Declaration

24

B, C, D, J, and Q to Gabriel Gross’s declaration in support of

25

Transperfect’s motions in limine.

Exhibits B, C, and J describe

26
27
28

1

Although Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) permitted MotionPoint seven
days to file a declaration supporting its designation of this material
as sealable, MotionPoint did not file any such declaration.

2

1

the opinions of one expert, Ned Barnes, regarding MotionPoint’s

2

alleged economic damages.

3

these exhibits include “sensitive information relating to

4

TransPerfect’s finances,” id. ¶ 2, a close reading of the exhibits

5

reveals that they do not.

6

describe the opinions of another expert, Dr. Jeffrey Chase -- do

7

not appear to include any “trade secrets related to the

8

functionality of Transperfect’s products and technologies,” as

9

Transperfect contends.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Although Transperfect asserts that

Likewise, Exhibits D and Q -- which

Id.

Exhibit A, in contrast, does contain information about

11

Transperfect’s proprietary technology.

12

Transperfect has provided good cause for sealing this content,

13

this exhibit may be filed under seal.

14

II.

Accordingly, because

MotionPoint’s Motion to Seal

15

A.

16

MotionPoint seeks to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 18 of

Meghan Bordonaro’s Declaration

17

Meghan Bordonaro’s declaration in support of its motions in

18

limine.2

19

exhibits.

20

It has not provided good cause to seal any of these

Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 5 contain excerpts of various

21

deposition transcripts which, according to MotionPoint, describe

22

“confidential and competitively sensitive information.”

23

Declaration of Meghan E. Bordonaro in Support of MotionPoint’s

24

Motion to Seal ¶ 6.

A review of these transcripts, however,

25
26
27
28

2

MotionPoint initially moved to seal Exhibits 12, 13, and 21 of
Bordonaro’s declaration because Transperfect designated these exhibits
confidential. However, after MotionPoint submitted its sealing motion,
Transperfect withdrew its confidential designation of these exhibits and
stated that they may be filed in the public record.

3

1

reveals that they contain a significant amount of non-confidential

2

information.

3

MotionPoint employee’s prior work history, another MotionPoint

4

employee’s physical appearance, MotionPoint’s allegations of

5

infringement, and certain technologies claimed in MotionPoint’s

6

patents.

7

transcripts may contain other information that is potentially

8

sealable, MotionPoint has not explained in any detail why this

9

information is sensitive or how it would be harmed if the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The transcripts describe, for instance, one

None of this information is sealable.

Although the

information is disclosed.
MotionPoint has also failed to justify sealing Exhibit 18 of

12

Bordonaro’s declaration, which contains a two-hundred page excerpt

13

of Dr. Paul Clark’s expert report.

14

technologies disclosed in the patents-in-suit -- often quoting the

15

patents at length -- and summarizes the parties’ claim

16

construction disputes.

17

not sealable.

18

from the report that contain descriptions of proprietary

19

technologies not previously disclosed in its patents.

20
21

The report describes various

This information is public and, therefore,

MotionPoint has failed to identify any excerpts

Accordingly, MotionPoint’s motion to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 4,
5, and 18 of Bordonaro’s declaration is denied.

22

B.

23

MotionPoint seeks to seal Exhibits 10-16 of Gregory Wyckoff’s

Gregory Wyckoff’s Declaration

24

declaration in support of its brief on disputed issued of law.

25

Exhibit 10 contains a short excerpt of Enrique Travieso’s

26

deposition testimony in which Travieso describes how he and his

27

colleagues collaborated to develop the technology disclosed in

28

certain MotionPoint patents.

The excerpt does not describe any
4

1

element of MotionPoint’s proprietary technology -- indeed, it is

2

not even clear from the excerpt what aspects of the technology

3

Travieso is discussing -- and does not reveal any sensitive

4

business information.

5

Accordingly, this excerpt is not sealable.

Exhibits 11-16 of Wyckoff’s declaration contain copies of e-

6

mails exchanged internally by MotionPoint employees.

7

has not offered any explanation as to why these e-mails are

8

sensitive or how it would be harmed if these e-mails are

9

ultimately disclosed.

MotionPoint

Most of these e-mails describe

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MotionPoint’s translation system in general terms without

11

providing any details about the technology itself.

12

the e-mails appear to discuss elements of MotionPoint’s

13

translation system that MotionPoint itself planned to disclose in

14

order to attract potential clients.

15

conclusory assertion that these e-mails contain sensitive

16

information is insufficient to justify sealing these exhibits.

What’s more,

Thus, MotionPoint’s

17

CONCLUSION

18

For the reasons set forth above, Transperfect’s motion to

19

seal (Docket No. 288) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

20

Within three days of this order, Transperfect shall file Exhibits

21

B, C, D, J, and Q of Gross’s declaration in the public record.

22

addition, it shall file a new version of its motions in limine in

23

the public record after redacting the information on page 10.

24

other information may be redacted from its motions in limine.

25

MotionPoint’s motion to seal (Docket No. 296) is DENIED.

In

No

26

Within three days of this order, MotionPoint shall file publicly

27

Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 18 of Bordonaro’s declaration in support

28

of its motions in limine.

In addition, it must file publicly
5

1

Exhibits 10-16 of Wyckoff’s declaration in support of its brief on

2

disputed issues of law.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated:

6/3/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6