TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 318


Download PDF
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, 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

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?