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

Filing 772

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ( 752 , 753 , 754 , 755 , 756 , 757 , 758 , 759 , 762 , 763 ) AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DIGITAL REG OF TEXAS, LLC,

5
6

No. C 12-1971 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON AMENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

7

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

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

(Docket Nos. 752,
753, 754, 755,
756, 757, 758,
759, 762, 763)

Before the Court are several amended administrative motions
to seal.

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

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

Civ. L.R. 79-

Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only

sealable material.

Id.

The request must be supported by the

designating party's declaration establishing that the information
is sealable.

Id. subsection (d).

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents.'"

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

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

In considering a sealing

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

Id.

The documents sought to be filed

under seal in this case are related to motions for attorneys'
fees, a non-dispositive motion.

A party seeking to seal materials

related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause by making

1

a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will

2

result" should the information be disclosed.

3

R. Civ. P. 26(c).

4

harm" will not suffice.

5

331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).

Id. at 1179-80; Fed.

"[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

The Court now assesses each motion in turn.

6
7

Docket No.

8

Ruling

752

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal citations
to the record indicating use of Adobe's ALM

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

technology in its AMT product.

11

motion, Digital Reg submits a declaration from W.

12

Paul Schuck.

13

record citations contain information that Adobe has

14

designated as highly confidential.

15

designating party, and in compliance with Civil

16

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Adobe submits a declaration

17

from Anant N. Pradhan explaining that the code is

18

"very sensitive, non-public, and highly

19

confidential."

20

the motion.

21

tailored and the redactions contain information

22

falling within the class of materials that may be

23

filed under seal.

As the

The Court finds good cause to grant

Digital Reg's request is narrowly-

752).

25

27

Mr. Schuck explains that the redacted

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

24

26

In support of its

753

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal a redacted
version of its opposition to Adobe's renewed motion

28
2

1

to exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Parr.

In

2

support of its motion, Digital Reg submits a

3

declaration from W. Paul Schuck.

4

explains that the redacted portions contain

5

discussion and analysis of Digital Reg's financial

6

information and patent licenses and that public

7

disclosure of this information would harm Digital

8

Reg by placing it at a disadvantage in future

9

licensing negotiations.

Mr. Schuck

The Court finds good cause

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to grant the motion.

11

narrowly-tailored and the redactions contain

12

information falling within the class of materials

13

that may be filed under seal.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

14
753).

15
16

Digital Reg's request is

754

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal a redacted

17

version of its offer of proof regarding Trial

18

Exhibits 43, 44 and 45.

19

Digital Reg submits a declaration from W. Paul

20

Schuck.

21

portions disclose details of Digital Reg's patent

22

licenses and that public disclosure of this

23

information would harm Digital Reg by placing it at

24

a disadvantage in future licensing negotiations.

25

The Court finds good cause to grant the motion.

26

Digital Reg's request is narrowly-tailored and the

27

redactions contain information falling within the

In support of its motion,

Mr. Schuck explains that the redacted

28
3

class of materials that may be filed under seal.

1

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

2
754).

3
4

755

Adobe seeks to file under seal portions of

5

Exhibits 1, 5 and 12, and the entirety of Exhibit 11

6

to the declaration of Byron C. Beebe.

7

its motion, Adobe submits a declaration from Anant

8

N. Pradhan.

9

citations contain information that Digital Reg has

In support of

Mr. Pradhan explains that the redacted

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

designated as highly confidential.

11

designating party, and in compliance with Civil

12

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Digital Reg submits a

13

declaration from Nicole E. Glauser explaining that

14

the redacted information is confidential business

15

information about royalty rates, terms of licensing

16

agreements and revenues.

17

explains that Digital Reg and its business partners

18

would be harmed by the public disclosure of this

19

information because it would place them at a

20

disadvantage in future negotiations.

The Court

21

finds good cause to grant the motion.

Adobe's

22

request is narrowly-tailored and the redactions

23

contain information falling within the class of

24

materials that may be filed under seal.

Ms. Glauser further

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

25
26

As the

755).

27
28
4

1

756

Adobe seeks to file under seal a redacted

2

version of its response to Digital Reg's brief

3

regarding ALM-AMT citations in the record.

4

support of its motion, Adobe submits a declaration

5

from Anant N. Pradhan.

6

the redacted portions contain discussion of Adobe

7

proprietary technological information and trade

8

secrets.

The Court finds good cause to grant the

9

motion.

Adobe's request is narrowly-tailored and

In

Mr. Pradhan explains that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the redactions contain information falling within

11

the class of materials that may be filed under seal.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

12
756).

13
14

757

Adobe seeks to file under seal Exhibit A to its

15

Update to Motion in Limine No. 1 And Objections to

16

Second Supplemental Parr Report.

17

motion, Adobe submits a declaration from Anant N.

18

Pradhan.

19

designated the Exhibit as confidential.

20

designating party, and in compliance with Civil

21

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Digital Reg submits a

22

declaration from Nicole E. Glauser explaining that

23

the Exhibit contains sensitive information regarding

24

royalty rates, revenues, payments, technical aspects

25

of licensing agreements and unique material terms,

26

that this information is confidential and that

27

public disclosure of this information would harm

In support of its

Mr. Pradhan explains that Digital Reg

28
5

As the

1

Digital Reg by adversely affecting its future

2

negotiations of licenses and litigation.

3

finds good cause to grant the motion.

4

request is narrowly-tailored and the redactions

5

contain information falling within the class of

6

materials that may be filed under seal.

Adobe's

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No.

7
757).

8
9

The Court

758

Adobe seeks to file under seal portions of its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

reply brief in support of its renewed motion to

11

exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Parr.

12

support of its motion, Adobe submits a declaration

13

from Anant N. Pradhan.

14

Digital Reg designated the information contained in

15

the redacted portions as confidential.

16

designating party, Digital Reg has an obligation

17

under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to file a declaration

18

establishing the designated material as sealable.

19

Digital Reg did not file such a declaration.

In

Mr. Pradhan explains that

As the

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

20
21

758).

22

79-5(e)(2) for further instruction.

23

759

The Court refers Adobe to Civil Local Rule

Adobe seeks to file under seal portions of the

24

rebuttal report of its damages expert Stephen D.

25

Prowse.

26

declaration from Anant N. Pradhan.

27

claims that one redaction, paragraphs 49-53,

In support of its motion, Adobe submits a

28
6

Mr. Pradhan

1

contains confidential information regarding Adobe

2

licenses and that public disclosure of this

3

information could harm Adobe.

4

states that it could be harmed, but does not provide

5

any detail or information on which the Court could

6

so find.

7

potential harm" will not suffice.

8

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th

9

Cir. 2003).

Here, Adobe only

"[B]road, conclusory allegations of
Foltz v. State

Thus, the Court is constrained to deny

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Adobe's motion as to the redactions in paragraphs

11

49-53.

12

With regard to the other redactions from the

13

rebuttal report, Mr. Pradhan explains that Digital

14

Reg designated the material as confidential.

15

designating party, and in compliance with Civil

16

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Digital Reg submits a

17

declaration from Nicole E. Glauser explaining that

18

the report contains sensitive information regarding

19

royalty rates and terms specific to licensing

20

agreements, that this information is confidential

21

and that public disclosure of this information would

22

harm Digital Reg by adversely affecting its future

23

negotiations of licenses and litigation.

24

finds good cause to grant the motion as to the

25

portions designated confidential by Digital Reg

26

because the redactions are narrowly-tailored and

27

contain information falling within the class of

28
7

As the

The Court

materials that may be filed under seal.

1

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

2
3

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 759).

4

Adobe to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) for further

5

instruction.

6

762

The Court refers

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal an

7

unredacted version of its Response to Adobe's Brief

8

Regarding Disputed Legal Issues and Exhibits F, H

9

and J to the declaration filed in support of that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Brief.

In support of its motion, Digital Reg

11

submits a declaration from W. Paul Schuck.

12

Schuck explains that Adobe designated the materials

13

sought to be filed under seal as confidential.

14

the designating party, and in compliance with Civil

15

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Adobe submits a declaration

16

from Anant N. Pradhan.

17

speaks only to Exhibit F, paragraphs 42-45 of

18

Exhibit H and sections 10:17, 11:1-20, 12:2-22 and

19

13:5-22 of the Response brief.

20

that this material contains confidential information

21

about the operation of Adobe products and that

22

public disclosure could harm Adobe by disclosing

23

confidential technical information.

24

good cause to grant the motion as to Exhibit F,

25

paragraphs 42-45 of Exhibit H and sections 10:17,

26

11:1-20, 12:2-22 and 13:5-22 of the Response brief.

27

The request to file these materials under seal is

28
8

Mr.

As

The Pradhan Declaration

Mr. Pradhan explains

The Court finds

1

narrowly-tailored and the redactions contain

2

information falling within the class of materials

3

that may be filed under seal.

4

materials indicated in Digital Reg's motion but not

5

substantiated by the Pradhan Declaration, the motion

6

is denied.

As to the other

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

7
8

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 762).

9

Digital Reg to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) for
further instruction.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The Court refers

763

Digital Reg seeks to file under seal an

12

unredacted version of its Response to Adobe's

13

Motions in Limine and Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, H, I

14

J, K, L and T to the declaration filed in support of

15

its Response.

16

submits a declaration from W. Paul Schuck.

17

Schuck explains that Exhibits A, E, H, I and J

18

contain confidential information regarding licensing

19

agreements and that Exhibit C contains confidential

20

financial information.

21

argues that public disclosure of this information

22

would harm Digital Reg by weakening its position in

23

future licensing negotiations.

24

cause to grant the motion as to these materials

25

because the redactions are narrowly-tailored and

26

contain information falling within the class of

27

materials that may be filed under seal.

In support of its motion, Digital Reg

28
9

Mr.

The Schuck Declaration

The Court finds good

Mr. Schuck further explains that Adobe

1

designated Exhibits B, D, K, L and T as

3

confidential.

4

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Adobe

5

submits a declaration from Anant N. Pradhan.

6

Pradhan explains that Exhibit B describes

7

confidential business practices relating to Adobe's

8

products, that Exhibits D and L and portions of

9

Exhibit K describe technical features of Adobe's

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

products and that portions of Exhibit T describe

11

Adobe's knowledge of information related to the

12

Patents-in-Suit.

13

these materials contain confidential information and

14

that public disclosure could harm Adobe by

15

disclosing confidential information regarding the

16

form, structure and operation of Adobe's products or

17

other confidential technical and financial features

18

of Adobe's products or business products.

19

finds good cause to grant the motion as to Exhibits

20

B, D and L; as to sections 5:1-6:10 and 12:27-13:5

21

of Exhibit K; and as to section 10:9-15 of Exhibit

22

T.

23

is narrowly-tailored and the redactions contain

24

information falling within the class of materials

25

that may be filed under seal.

26

materials indicated in Digital Reg's motion but not

27

substantiated by the Pradhan Declaration—namely, the

As the designating party, and in

Mr.

Mr. Pradhan further explains that

The Court

The request to file these materials under seal

28
10

As to the other

1
2

remainder of Exhibits K and T—the motion is denied.
Finally, both the Schuck and Pradhan

3

Declarations argue that portions of Digital Reg's

4

Response to Adobe's Motions in Limine should be

5

filed under seal because they refer to, analyze or

6

cite to the above-discussed confidential materials.

7

The Court finds that the redactions are narrowly-

8

tailored and contain information falling within the

9

class of materials that may be filed under seal.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

11

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 763).

12

Digital Reg to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) for

13

further instruction.

14
15

The Court refers

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Digital Reg's amended

16

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 752) is GRANTED; Digital

17

Reg's amended administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 753) is

18

GRANTED; Digital Reg's amended administrative motion to seal

19

(Docket No. 754) is GRANTED; Adobe's amended administrative motion

20

to seal (Docket No. 755) is GRANTED; Adobe's amended

21

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 756) is GRANTED; Adobe's

22

amended administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 757) is GRANTED;

23

Adobe's amended administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 758) is

24

DENIED; Adobe's amended administrative motion to seal (Docket No.

25

759) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; Digital Reg's amended

26

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 762) is DENIED in part

27

and GRANTED in part; and Digital Reg's amended administrative

28
11

1

motion to seal (Docket No. 763) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in

2

part.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 10, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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
12