Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 749

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ( 588 , 590 , 603 , 607 , 616 , 621 , 627 , 646 , 650 , 654 , 656 , 701 , 719 , 725 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DIGITAL REG OF TEXAS, LLC,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER ON MOTIONS
TO SEAL (Docket
Nos. 588, 590,
603, 607, 616,
621, 627, 646,
650, 654, 656,
701, 719, 725)

v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

8
9

No. C 12-1971 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal
filed by both 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.

Here, each of the administrative motions to seal is made in

27

connection with dispositive motions.

A party seeking to seal

28

records attached to a dispositive motion bears the burden of

1

establishing "compelling reasons supported by specific factual

2

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

3

public policies favoring disclosure."

4

because dispositive motions represent "the heart of the interest

5

in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and

6

of significant public events."

Id. at 1178-79.

This is

Id. at 1179.

The Court provides the following rulings on the parties'

7
8

motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.

9

Docket No.

Ruling

588

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal (1) the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

unredacted version of its brief in opposition to

12

certain legal defenses raised by Adobe; and

13

(2) certain exhibits to the declaration of W. Paul

14

Schuck in support of that brief.

15

DENIED.

16

motion is denied for failure to comply with Civ.

17

L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D), which provides both that the

18

unredacted version "must indicate, by highlighting

19

or other clear method, the portions of the

20

document that have been omitted from the redacted

21

version," and that the unredacted version

22

"prominently display the notation UNREDACTED

23

VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED."

24

respect to Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,

25

L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S to the Schuck

26

declaration, the motion is denied for failure to

27

comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that

The motion is

With respect to Digital Reg's brief, the

28
2

With

1

a request to seal be "narrowly tailored to seek

2

sealing only of sealable material."

3

that Digital Reg made no attempt whatsoever to

4

narrowly tailor its request by providing the Court

5

with redacted and unredacted versions of these

6

exhibits, but instead merely provided a cover page

7

for each reading "DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL."

8

The rule requires more.

9

a modified and narrowly tailored version of this

It appears

Digital Reg may resubmit

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

sealing request no later than seven days from the

11

date of this order.

12

the listed exhibits, Digital Reg must submit both

13

redacted and unredacted versions of each exhibit,

14

with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable

15

material; if Digital Reg believes that an exhibit

16

should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain

17

why in an accompanying declaration.

18

590

Specifically with regard to

Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted

19

version of its motions in limine; (2) the

20

unredacted version of its brief regarding certain

21

legal defenses; (3) several exhibits to the

22

declaration of Byron C. Beebe; and (4) the

23

unredacted version of Exhibit 10 to the Beebe

24

declaration.

25

limine, its brief, and Exhibits 2 and 10, the

26

motion is GRANTED, because Adobe limits its

27

redactions to financial and otherwise confidential

With respect to Adobe's motions in

28
3

information.

2

8, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 18, which Adobe seeks to

3

seal in their entirety, the motion is DENIED for

4

failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which

5

requires that requests to seal be narrowly

6

tailored.

7

date of this order, resubmit a modified and

8

narrowly tailored version of this sealing request,

9

with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

material; if Adobe believes that an exhibit should

11

be sealed in its entirety, it must explain why in

12

an accompanying declaration.

13

603

With regard to Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6,

Adobe may, within seven days from the

Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted

14

version of its response to Digital Reg's motions

15

in limine; and (2) certain exhibits to the

16

declaration of Byron C. Beebe in support of that

17

response.

18

motion is GRANTED, because Adobe limits its

19

redactions to confidential information.

20

respect to Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 10 to the Beebe

21

declaration, which Adobe seeks to seal in their

22

entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure to

23

comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that

24

requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

25

within seven days from the date of this order,

26

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version

27

of this sealing request, with redactions narrowly

With respect to the response brief, the

28
4

With

Adobe may,

1

tailored to only sealable material; if Adobe

2

believes that an exhibit should be sealed in its

3

entirety, it must explain why in an accompanying

4

declaration.

5

607

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal (1) the

6

unredacted version of its response to Adobe's

7

motions in limine; and (2) certain exhibits to the

8

declaration of W. Paul Schuck in support of that

9

response.

The motion is DENIED.

With respect to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Digital Reg's response, the motion is denied for

11

failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D),

12

which requires that the unredacted version show,

13

by highlighting or other equally clear method, the

14

material that has been omitted from the redacted

15

version.

16

F, G, H, I, J, K, L, O, P, and T to the Schuck

17

declaration, which Digital Reg seeks to seal in

18

their entirety, the motion is denied for failure

19

to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires

20

that requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

21

Digital Reg may resubmit a modified and narrowly

22

tailored version of this sealing request no later

23

than seven days from the date of this order.

24

Specifically with regard to the listed exhibits,

25

Digital Reg must submit both redacted and

26

unredacted versions of each exhibit, with

27

redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable

With respect to Exhibits A, B, C, D, E,

28
5

1

material; if Digital Reg believes that an exhibit

2

should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain

3

why in an accompanying declaration.

4

616

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal citations to

5

the record indicating use of Adobe's ALM

6

technology in its AMT product.

7

DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R.

8

79-5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted

9

version show, by highlighting or other equally

The motion is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

clear method, the material that has been omitted

11

from the redacted version.

12

within seven days of the date of this order,

13

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version

14

of this sealing request.

15

621

Digital Reg may,

Adobe seeks permission to seal the unredacted

16

version of its response to Digital Reg's ALM-AMT

17

citations to the record.

18

failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D),

19

which requires that the unredacted version show,

20

by highlighting or other equally clear method, the

21

material that has been omitted from the redacted

22

version.

23

order, resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored

24

version of this sealing request.

25

627

The motion is DENIED for

Adobe may, within seven days of this

Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted

26

version of its update to its motions in limine and

27

objection to Digital Reg's supplemental expert

28
6

1

report; and (2) Exhibit A to that update.

With

2

respect to the update brief, the motion is

3

GRANTED, because Adobe limits its request to

4

confidential financial information.

5

to Exhibit A, which Adobe seeks to seal in its

6

entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure to

7

comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that

8

requests to seal be narrowly tailored.

9

within seven days from the date of this order,

With respect

Adobe may,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version

11

of this sealing request, with redactions narrowly

12

tailored to only sealable material; if Adobe

13

believes that the exhibit should be sealed in its

14

entirety, it must explain why in an accompanying

15

declaration.

16

646

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal Exhibit A to

17

the identification of deposition testimony for

18

presentation at trial of Joseph Jones.

19

the request is limited to confidential technical

20

information, the motion is GRANTED.

21

650

Because

Adobe seeks permission to seal its reply brief

22

concerning its renewed motion to exclude the

23

testimony of Digital Reg's damages expert, Mr.

24

Russell Parr.

25

comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D), which

26

requires that the unredacted version show, by

27

highlighting or other equally clear method, the

The motion is DENIED for failure to

28
7

1

material that has been omitted from the redacted

2

version.

3

order, resubmit a modified version of this sealing

4

request that includes an unredacted version of the

5

reply brief showing, via highlighting or other

6

clear method, the portions of the document that

7

have been omitted from the redacted version.

8

654

Adobe may, within seven days of this

Adobe seeks permission to seal the rebuttal expert
report of its damages expert, Dr. Stephen D.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Prowse.

11

support of the motion identifies specific

12

paragraphs of the report that contain confidential

13

information, Adobe does not seek to redact that

14

information, but rather appears to seek to seal

15

the report in its entirety.

16

for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b),

17

which requires that requests to seal be narrowly

18

tailored.

19

order, resubmit a modified version of this sealing

20

request with redactions narrowly tailored to only

21

sealable material; if Adobe believes that the

22

exhibit should be sealed in its entirety, it must

23

explain why in an accompanying declaration.

24

656

Although Mr. Pradhan's declaration in

The motion is DENIED

Adobe may, within seven days of this

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal its

25

opposition brief to Adobe's renewed motion to

26

exclude the testimony of Mr. Parr.

27

DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R.

28
8

The motion is

1

79-5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted

2

version show, by highlighting or other clear

3

method, the material that was omitted from the

4

redacted version.

5

days of this order, resubmit a modified version of

6

this sealing request.

7

701

Digital Reg may, within seven

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal the

8

unredacted version of its offer of proof regarding

9

Trial Exhibits 43, 44, and 45, including three

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

attachments to the offer of proof.

11

to the attachments, the motion is GRANTED.

12

respect to the offer of proof, the motion is

13

DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-

14

5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted

15

version show, by highlighting or other clear

16

method, the material that was omitted from the

17

redacted version.

18

days of this order, resubmit a modified and

19

narrowly tailored version of this sealing request.

20

719

With respect
With

Digital Reg may, within seven

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal several

21

demonstrative exhibits submitted in support of its

22

offer of proof for Trial Exhibits 175A, 175B, and

23

176C.

24

declaration that the demonstratives contain

25

confidential information, Digital Reg seeks to

26

seal them in their entirety rather than merely

27

redacting the confidential information.

Although Mr. Schuck states in his

28
9

The

1

motion is DENIED for failure to comply with Civ.

2

L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that requests to seal

3

be narrowly tailored.

4

seven days of this order, resubmit a modified and

5

narrowly tailored version of this sealing request

6

with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable

7

material; if Digital Reg believes that the exhibit

8

should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain

9

why in an accompanying declaration..

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

725

Digital Reg may, within

Digital Reg seeks permission to seal (1) Trial

11

Exhibits 43a, 44, 45a, 46, 98, and 100, which are

12

license agreements and/or settlement agreements,

13

each of which contains confidential financial

14

information; and (2) Trial Exhibit 695, a

15

demonstrative exhibit that sets forth key terms

16

for patent licenses and/or settlement agreements.

17

Because the request is limited to financial or

18

other confidential information, the motion is

19

GRANTED.

20
21
22
23
24

Judgment will enter after all of these outstanding motions
have been decided.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 14, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
10