PQ Labs, Inc. et al v. Qi et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 119 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

PQ LABS, INC.,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 12-0450 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 119)

YANG QI, ZAAGTECH, INC., JINPENG
LI, and HAIPENG LI,
Defendants.
________________________________/

11
12

On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff PQ Labs, Inc., moved to seal

13

an exhibit filed in support of its motions in limine.

14

Specifically, it moved to seal Exhibit A to the declaration of

15

Stephen Ellenberg, which contains Sandeep Chatterjee’s expert

16

report.

17

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

18
in the public record, a party seeking to file a document under
19
20

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

Pintos v. Pac.

21

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

22

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

23

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

24

is considered to be confidential; rather, every sealing request

25

This cannot

must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with

26
particularity the need to file each document under seal.
27
Civil L.R. 79–5(d).
28

See

1

Plaintiff has provided a declaration from its counsel, Bonnie

2

Wolf, stating that Chatterjee’s expert report contains highly

3

confidential hardware schematics and other sensitive data which

4

Plaintiff has identified as trade secrets in this litigation.

5

While Wolf’s declaration supports sealing certain portions of

6

Chatterjee’s report, it is not sufficient to support sealing the

7
report in its entirety.

See Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (stating that

8
9

every sealing “request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

only of sealable material”).

11

non-sealable material, including information about Chatterjee’s

12

qualifications and background, the methods and materials he used

13

in producing his report, his understanding of California trade

14

The report contains several pages of

secrets law, and general descriptions of the technology he

15
examined.

The Wolf declaration does not establish good cause for

16
sealing this material.
17
18

Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Docket No. 119) is therefore

19

DENIED.

Within four days of this order, Plaintiff must file

20

Chatterjee’s report in the public record, withdraw it as an

21

exhibit, or file a renewed motion that is “narrowly tailored to

22

seek sealing of only sealable material.”

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

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

2/26/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2