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

Filing 187

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON 92 , 150 , 158 , 164 , 176 , 179 , 186 MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PQ LABS, INC., et al.,

5
6
7

Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER ON MOTIONS
TO SEAL (Docket
Nos. 92, 150, 158,
164, 176, 179,
186)

v.
YANG QI, et al.,

8
9

No. C 12-450 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal
filed by multiple parties.

12

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under

13

seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be

14

sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

15

entitled to protection under the law."

16

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable

17

material.

18

party's declaration establishing that the information is sealable.

19

Id. subsection (d).

20

Id.

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

Any

The request must be supported by the designating

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to

21

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

22

records and documents.'"

23

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

24

request, the Court begins with "a strong presumption of access

25

[as] the starting point."

26

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
In considering a sealing

Id.

A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive

27

motion bears the burden of establishing "compelling reasons

28

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

1

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure."

2

Id. at 1178-79.

3

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

4

of the judicial process and of significant public events."

5

1179.

6

This is because dispositive motions represent

Id. at

The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with

7

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

8

'tangentially related" to the underlying cause of action.

9

1179-80.

Id. at

A party seeking to seal materials related to non-

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

dispositive motions must show good cause by making a

11

"particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will

12

result" should the information be disclosed.

13

26(c).

14

not suffice.

15

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).

16

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 provides the following rulings on the parties'

17

motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.

18

Docket No.

Ruling

19

92

PQ Labs moves to seal Exhibits A-F to the

20

declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D., in

21

support of PQ Labs' opposition to the

22

Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

23

The motion is DENIED.

24

Exhibits A and B, which consist entirely

25

of design cache displays from the PQ Labs

26

PQ9131 schematic and the Zaagtech GodFace

27

V1.0 XEM schematic, PQ Labs does not

28
2

With regard to

1

explain how merely revealing the file

2

names displayed in these exhibits would

3

reveal trade secrets.

4

Exhibits C-F, the request is not narrowly

5

tailored to cover only the information

6

for which there are compelling reasons to

7

keep under seal.

8

sealable in full; only portions revealing

9

trade secrets, such as the schematics

With regard to

The exhibits are not

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

themselves, may be sealed.

11

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored

12

version of this sealing request no later

13

than seven days from the date of this

14

order.

15

documents will be filed in the public

16

record.

17

150

PQ Labs may

If it does not do so, the

Defendants move to seal portions of

18

Exhibit A and the entirety of Exhibits G

19

and H to the declaration of Perry J.

20

Narancic in support of Defendants' motion

21

to exclude the report and testimony of

22

Mark P. Berkman.

23

because the materials are related to a

24

non-dispositive motion, and because

25

Defendants limit their request to only

26

trade secret or other confidential

27

information.

28
3

The motion is GRANTED

1

158

Defendants move to seal certain documents

2

that were attached to their Trial Exhibit

3

391.

4

illustrations and technical

5

specifications of Plaintiffs' products,

6

the publication of which would reveal

7

trade secrets.

8

because Defendants limit their request to

9

trade secret information.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

164

Those documents contain schematic

The motion is GRANTED

Plaintiffs move to seal portions of

11

Exhibit A to the declaration of Steven A.

12

Ellenberg in support of their first and

13

third motions in limine, by which

14

Plaintiffs sought to exclude certain

15

testimony of Defendants' expert Sandeep

16

Chatterjee.1

17

because the materials are in support of a

18

non-dispositive motion, and because

19

Plaintiffs limit their request to only

20

trade secret or other confidential

21

information.

The motion is GRANTED

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs previously moved to seal Exhibit A in its
entirety. (Docket No. 119). The Court denied that motion, which
was not narrowly tailored as required by Local Rule 79-5. Order
(Docket No. 139). Plaintiffs then sought to seal only parts of
Exhibit A. Renewed Mot. (Docket No. 145). The Court found good
cause to seal most of the information that Plaintiffs sought to
redact, but again found that the request was not sufficiently
narrowly tailored, and granted the motion only in part. (Docket
No. 157).
4

1

176

Plaintiffs move to seal Paragraph 31 of

2

their Proposed Findings of Fact and

3

Conclusions of Law, which identifies the

4

specific trade secrets at issue in this

5

lawsuit.

6

Plaintiffs limit their request to trade

7

secret information.

8

179

The motion is GRANTED because

Plaintiffs move (1) to seal from the

9

public record, by redaction, certain

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

parts of the Reporter's Transcript of the

11

trial proceedings on March 10 and March

12

11, 2014, which concern Plaintiffs' trade

13

secrets; and (2) to seal certain trial

14

exhibits2 which were admitted into

15

evidence on March 10 and 11, 2014, and

16

which contain trade secrets, pricing and

17

customer data, and other confidential

18

information.

19

because Plaintiffs limit their request

20

only to trade secret or other

21

confidential information.

22

186

The motion is GRANTED

Plaintiffs move to seal Paragraphs 20 and

23

27 of their reply to Defendants' Proposed

24

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

25

which discuss the specific trade secrets

26
27
28

2

Plaintiffs seek to seal the following exhibits: Plaintiffs'
TE 22-26, 30, 37, 132-135, 137-138, and 141-147.
5

1

at issue in this lawsuit.

2

specific redactions identified in Docket

3

No. 186-3 appear to be proper, the Court

4

observes that certain sentences from the

5

unredacted version appear neither in the

6

text of the redacted version, nor as

7

redactions.

8

27, with Docket No. 186-4, ¶ 27 (filed

9

under seal).

Although the

Compare Docket No. 186-3, ¶

For this reason, the motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is DENIED.

11

modified and narrowly tailored version of

12

this sealing request no later than seven

13

days from the date of this order.

14

they do not do so, the documents will be

15

filed in the public record.

Plaintiffs may resubmit a

If

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons set forth above, PQ Labs's Administrative

18

Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No. 92) is DENIED, with leave to

19

resubmit within seven days from the date of this order;

20

Defendants' Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Docket Nos.

21

150, 158) are GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Administrative

22

Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No. 164) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs'

23

Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Docket Nos. 176, 179)

24

are GRANTED; and Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under

25

Seal (Docket No.186) is DENIED, with leave to resubmit within

26

//

27

//

28
6

1
2
3
4

seven days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9/15/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

5
6
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
7