TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 538

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken on ( 489 , 494 , 509 , 518 , 522 ) Motions to Seal. (granting 489 ; granting in part and denying in part 494 ; granting 509 ; granting 518 ; granting 522 ) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC.;
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and
TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC.

9

v.
MOTIONPOINT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

ORDER ON MOTIONS
TO SEAL (Docket
Nos. 489, 494,
509, 518, 522)

Plaintiffs,

7
8

No. C 10-2590 CW

________________________________/
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions, filed
by multiple parties, to seal materials related to Plaintiffs'
motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under

15
seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be
16
sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
17
entitled to protection under the law."

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Any

18
sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable
19
material.

Id.

The request must be supported by the designating

20
party's declaration establishing that the information is sealable.
21
Id. subsection (d).
22
"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to
23
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
24
records and documents.'"

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

25
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

In considering a sealing

26
request, the Court begins with "a strong presumption of access
27
[as] the starting point."
28

Id.

1

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive

2

motion bears the burden of establishing "compelling reasons

3

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

4

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure."

5

Id. at 1178-79.

6

"the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding

7

of the judicial process and of significant public events."

8

1179.

9

This is because dispositive motions represent

Id. at

The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

equal force to non-dispositive motions, which may be only

11

"tangentially related" to the underlying cause of action.

12

1179-80.

13

dispositive motions must show good cause by making a

14

"particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will

15

result" should the information be disclosed.

16

26(c).

17

not suffice.

18

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

Id. at

A party seeking to seal materials related to non-

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

"[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm" will
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

The Court rules as follows on the parties' motions to seal.

20

Docket No.

21

489

Ruling
Plaintiffs seek permission to file a redacted

22

version of their motions (1) to amend the judgment

23

to award supplemental damages and interest; (2) to

24

amend the injunction; (3) for judgment as a matter

25

of law of induced infringement; (4) for judgment as

26

a matter of law of contributory infringement; and

27

(5) for an exceptional case finding and attorneys'

28
2

1

fees (the "consolidated post-judgment motion").1

2

The redactions on pages ii, viii, and 1-5 conceal

3

financial information that is properly redacted as

4

proprietary; redactions on page 17 conceal other

5

confidential information.

6

because Plaintiffs limit their request to only

7

confidential information.

8

494

Plaintiffs seek permission to file under seal all

9

or part of the following seven documents:

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

The motion is GRANTED

1. The Declaration of Creighton G. Hoffman

11

(Hoffman Declaration) and supporting exhibits.

12

With regard to the Hoffman Declaration, the

13

motion is GRANTED because Plaintiffs limit

14

their request to only confidential financial

15

information.

16

2. The Declaration of Gabriel S. Gross (Gross

17

Declaration) in support of Plaintiffs' motion

18

for an exceptional case finding and attorneys'

19

fees.

20

Gross Declaration the average associate and

21

partner billing ranges of Plaintiffs' counsel,

Plaintiffs seek to redact from the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs' administrative motions at Docket Nos. 489 and
494 are identical, with each seeking permission to file under seal
all or part of eight documents. However, Plaintiffs attached to
Docket No. 489 only the first document, their consolidated postjudgment motion; the other seven documents they attached to Docket
No. 494. Thus, the Court construes Docket No. 489 as addressing
only Plaintiffs' consolidated post-judgment motion, and construes
Docket No. 494 as addressing the other documents that Plaintiffs
seek permission to file under seal.
3

1

the law firms Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham);

2

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP

3

(Kasowitz) (collectively, "Plaintiffs'

4

counsel"); and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

5

LLP (Orrick), on the grounds that Plaintiffs'

6

counsel consider these rates to be "highly

7

sensitive and confidential business

8

information," and that its disclosure would

9

harm Plaintiffs' counsel "in their ability to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

secure business from future clients."

11

Court is not persuaded.

12

award of attorneys' fees routinely reveal

13

their hourly rates, lest it appear that the

14

award sought is merely drawn from thin air.

15

With regard to the Gross Declaration, the

16

motion is DENIED.

17

The

Parties seeking an

3. Exhibit A to the Gross Declaration.

18

Plaintiffs seek to redact from Exhibit A

19

Plaintiffs' counsel's individual summaries of

20

time spent on the matter and their individual

21

billing rates.

22

the Gross Declaration, the motion is DENIED

23

for the same reasons articulated in denying

24

the motion with regard to the Gross

25

Declaration.

26
27

With regard to Exhibit A to

4. Exhibit B to the Gross Declaration.
Plaintiffs seek to seal in its entirety

28
4

1

Exhibit B, which contains Orrick's time

2

keeping policy, and which an Orrick associate

3

described as "highly sensitive and

4

confidential."

5

be routine, and the Court is not persuaded

6

that any harm would result from its release.

7

With regard to Exhibit B to the Gross

8

Declaration, the motion is DENIED.

9

In fact, the policy appears to

5. Exhibit D to the Declaration of Nikolaus A.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Woloszczuk (Woloszczuk Declaration) in support

11

of the consolidated post-judgment motion.

12

Plaintiffs seek to redact parts of the

13

transcript of the videotaped Rule 30(b)(6)

14

deposition of MotionPoint CEO William S.

15

Fleming.

16

Woloszczuk Declaration, the motion is GRANTED

17

because the Plaintiffs limit their request to

18

only confidential information.

19

With regard to Exhibit D to the

6. Exhibit E to the Woloszczuk Declaration.

20

Plaintiffs seek to seal in its entirety a

21

letter from Mr. Fleming to investor Michael

22

Feinberg.

23

Woloszczuk declaration, the motion is GRANTED

24

because Plaintiffs limit their request to only

25

confidential financial and marketing

26

information.

27

With regard to Exhibit E to the

7. Exhibit F to the Woloszczuk Declaration.

28
5

1

Plaintiffs seek to seal in its entirety an

2

email from Mr. Fleming to MotionPoint

3

executive Enrique Travieso.

4

Exhibit F to the Woloszczuk declaration, the

5

motion is GRANTED because Plaintiffs limit

6

their request to only confidential

7

information.

With regard to

8

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,

9

as set forth above.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

509

Plaintiffs seek permission to file a redacted

11

version of their post-judgment brief.

12

redactions conceal confidential financial

13

information.

14

Plaintiffs limit their request to only confidential

15

information.

16
17
18

518

The

The motion is GRANTED because

Defendant seeks permission to file redacted
versions of the following four documents:
1. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' post-

19

judgment brief.

20

confidential financial information.

21

regard to Defendant's opposition to

22

Plaintiffs' post-judgment brief, the motion is

23

GRANTED because Defendant limits its request

24

to only confidential information.

The redactions conceal
With

25

2. The Declaration of Ned S. Barnes (Barnes

26

Declaration) and supporting exhibits.

27

redactions conceal confidential financial

28
6

The

1

information.

2

Declaration and exhibits, the motion is

3

GRANTED because Defendant limits its request

4

to only confidential information.

5

With regard to the Barnes

3. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Enrique

6

Travieso (Travieso Declaration).

7

redactions conceal confidential financial

8

information.

9

motion is GRANTED because Defendant limits its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The

With regard to Exhibit 1, the

request to only confidential information.

11

4. Excerpts from the June 11, 2012 Expert Report

12

of Creighton G. Hoffman (Hoffman Report).

13

redactions conceal confidential financial

14

information.

15

Report, the motion is GRANTED because

16

Defendant limits its request to only

17

confidential information.

The

With regard to the Hoffman

18

For the reasons set forth above, the motion is

19

GRANTED.

20

522

Plaintiffs seek permission to file a redacted

21

version of their reply in support of their

22

consolidated post-judgment motion.

23

conceal confidential financial information.

24

motion is GRANTED because Plaintiffs limit their

25

request to only confidential information.

26

//

27

//

28
7

The redactions
The

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motions to seal at

3

Docket Nos. 489, 509, 518 and 522 are GRANTED.

4

at Docket No. 494 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

The motion to seal

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8