Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 442

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE ( 344 , 345 , 346 , 375 , 381 , 417 , 419 , 420 , 423 , 426 , 430 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

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

No. C 13-159 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; APPLE
COMPUTER INC.; ARUBA NETWORKS,
INC.; MERU NETWORKS, INC.; RUCKUS
WIRELESS,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW
(Docket Nos. 344,
345, 346, 375,
381, 417, 419,
420, 423, 426,
430)

Before the Court are several administrative motions to seal
and one motion for in camera review.

The Court first addresses

the motions to seal.
Pursuant to 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

1

under seal in this case are related to motions for attorneys'

2

fees, a non-dispositive motion.

3

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

4

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

5

result" should the information be disclosed.

6

R. Civ. P. 26(c).

7

harm" will not suffice.

8

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.

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

A party seeking to seal materials

Docket

11

No.

12

344

Ruling

Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) seeks

13

permission to file under seal the following

14

materials, submitted in support of HP's motion for

15

attorneys' fees, which contain information regarding

16

the attorneys' and staff's hourly rates: page 2,

17

lines 14-22, 24 and 27 of the Plimack Declaration

18

and Exhibit A to the Plimack Declaration.

19

support of its motion to seal, HP submits a

20

declaration from Deanna L. Kwong of Covington &

21

Burling LLP, HP's retained law firm, claiming that

22

releasing the materials to the public record would

23

competitively disadvantage HP and Covington in

24

negotiating future fee agreements with firms or

25

clients.

In

26

This justification does not constitute a

27

"particularized showing" of harm necessary to rebut

28
2

1

the presumption of public access to court filings.

2

"[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm"

3

will not suffice.

4

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

5

is commonplace for the number of hours billed and

6

the hourly rate of attorneys to be openly filed on

7

court dockets; without this information the final

8

fees award appears to be drawn from thin air.

9

Furthermore, this type of information is clearly not

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
It

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

privileged.

See Ferrington v. McAfee, 2013 WL

11

3814474 (N.D. Cal.) (denying motion to seal billing

12

records) (quoting Real v. Cont'l Group, Inc., 116

13

F.R.D. 211, 231 (N.D. Cal. 2013)).

14

the motion to seal.

The Court denies

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

15
344).

16
17

345 (with

Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek

18

Errata

permission to file under seal several different

19

noted in

types of materials.

20

Docket

request in several parts, according to the content

21

Nos. 354

of the material.

22

and 355)

seal the following materials containing information

The Court considers this

First, these Defendants seek to

23

regarding the attorneys' billing rates and fees:

24

Exhibits A and B to the Brun Declaration, Exhibits A

25

and B to the Oliver Declaration in support of Meru's

26

motion for attorneys' fees and Exhibits A and B to

27

the Oliver Declaration in support of Ruckus's motion

28
3

1

for attorneys' fees.

In support of their motion to

2

seal, these Defendants offer a declaration from L.

3

Scott Oliver, which states that the billing rates

4

and fees "are highly confidential and proprietary to

5

the law firms involved."

6

the Court's discussion of the motion to seal at

7

docket number 344, above, the Court finds that the

8

motion to seal these documents must be denied.

On identical reasoning as

Second, these Defendants seek to seal Exhibit E

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to the Brun Declaration, on the basis that it

11

contains confidential technical information.

12

Exhibit E is seven pages from the deposition of

13

expert witness Walter Bratic.

14

declaration from L. Scott Oliver, this material

15

contains "confidential technical information

16

regarding how Defendants' products function, [and]

17

their licenses with third parties. . . ."

18

finds that this request is narrowly-tailored and

19

falls within the class of materials that may be

20

filed under seal.

21

granted as to this material.

As explained in the

The Court

Accordingly, the motion will be

Third, these Defendants seek to seal portions

22

of their motion for attorneys' fees.1

23

Those portions

24
25
26
27
28

The Court notes that counsel's filing does not comply with
this District's Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D) which requires that
the unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under
seal "indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted
version. . . ." In this instance, court staff took the time to
1

4

1

are: page 6, lines 23-27; page 8, lines 22-25; page

2

9, lines 15-24 and footnotes 5-7; page 11, lines 15-

3

21; and page 12, lines 3-7 and footnote 11.

4

Oliver Declaration argues, and the Court finds, that

5

these redactions are confidential technical

6

information regarding how Defendants' products

7

function, their licenses with third parties and

8

confidential business information.

9

that this request is narrowly-tailored and falls

The

The Court finds

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

within the class of materials that may be filed

11

under seal.

12

as to the above-listed redactions.

13

Accordingly, the motion will be granted

Fourth, these Defendants seek to file under

14

seal Exhibit D to the Brun Declaration on the basis

15

that it is designated by Linex as confidential.

16

Pursuant to the District's Local Rule, Linex filed a

17

declaration in support of sealing this document.

18

Exhibit D is about ten pages from the expert report

19

of Walter Bratic.

20

is confidential, sensitive business information

21

regarding Linex's licenses and financial terms.

22

Court finds that this request is narrowly-tailored

23

and falls within the class of documents that may be

24

filed under seal.

25

this material.

Linex argues that the information

The

The motion will be granted as to

26
27
28

compare the two documents; in the future, non-compliant motions
will be denied outright.
5

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

1

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 345).

2
3

346

Defendant Apple seeks permission to file under

4

seal several different types of materials.

The

5

Court considers this request in several parts.

6

First, Apple seeks to seal portions of its and HP's

7

motion for attorneys' fees.

8

motion to seal, Apple submits a declaration of

9

Elizabeth M. Reilly of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale

In support of its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale), Apple's retained law

11

firm.

12

declares that Apple does not maintain a claim of

13

confidentiality, but that Linex and/or other

14

Defendants may consider the information

15

confidential.

16

declaration within the four-day deadline established

17

by Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) is Linex; Linex's

18

declaration states that it does not consider the

19

redacted information to be confidential.

20

Apple's motion to file portions of its and HP's

21

motion for attorneys' fees under seal must be

22

denied.

23

good cause may exist for permitting the redactions

24

to stand; however, the record does not appear to

25

contain any declarations justifying the redactions.

26

The Court will modify the otherwise-applicable

27

procedure provided in Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) to

With regard to the motion for fees, Reilly

The only party who filed a

As such,

A review of the redactions reveals that

28
6

1

permit Apple to resubmit its administrative motion

2

with respect to this document.

3

redaction, the Court instructs Apple either to

4

justify the redaction through its own declarations

5

or to specify which party it believes to be the

6

designating party charged with the responsibility to

7

file a declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule

8

79-5(e)(1). The Court grants Apple seven days from

9

the date of this order to file its resubmission.

For each proposed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Thereafter, the designating party will have an

11

opportunity to file a declaration in support of

12

sealing the document, pursuant to Civil Local Rule

13

79-5(e)(1).

14

Second, Apple seeks to seal Exhibit A to the

15

Reilly Declaration and Exhibit A to the Scarsi

16

Declaration on the grounds that they contain

17

sensitive information regarding the attorneys'

18

billing rates and fees.

19

hourly billing rates for Apple's counsel, as well as

20

the number of hours billed.

21

motion to seal, Reilly declares that public filing

22

of this information "could provide insight into

23

WilmerHale's billing structure and WilmerHale's

24

confidential financial relationship with Apple."

25

Reilly further declares that publication could

26

"cause harm."

27

discussion of the motion to seal at docket number

Both exhibits contain

In support of its

On identical reasoning as the Court's

28
7

1

344, above, the Court finds that the motion to seal

2

these documents must be denied.

3

Third, Apple moves for leave to file under seal

4

Exhibits 1, 4 and 5 to the Liao Declaration on the

5

basis that they contain sensitive technical and/or

6

financial information about the parties' products.

7

Exhibit 1 is an excerpt from Prucnal's initial

8

expert report.

9

Bratic's expert report.

Exhibit 4 is an excerpt from
Exhibit 5 is an excerpt

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

from Prucnal's supplemental expert report regarding

11

damages.

12

this material contains "sensitive technical

13

information pertaining to the defendants' products,"

14

"sensitive financial information," and "sensitive

15

technical and/or financial information."

16

finds that this request is narrowly-tailored and

17

falls within the class of documents that may be

18

filed under seal.

19

granted as to this material.

20

As explained in the Reilly Declaration,

The Court

Accordingly, the motion will be

Fourth, Apple moves for leave to file under

21

seal Exhibits 2 and 6 to the Liao Declaration on the

22

basis that they contain information that Linex may

23

consider confidential.

24

excerpts from depositions taken of Donald Schilling.

25

Linex filed a declaration in response, as required

26

by Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), but its declaration does

27

not address these two exhibits.

28
8

Exhibits 2 and 6 are

As such, Apple's

1

motion will be denied as to this material.

However,

2

a review of Exhibits 2 and 6 reveals that good cause

3

may exist for permitting the Exhibits to be filed

4

under seal.

5

any declarations justifying the redactions.

6

Court will modify the otherwise-applicable procedure

7

provided in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2) to permit

8

Apple to resubmit its administrative motion with

9

respect to these Exhibits.

The record does not appear to contain
The

For each Exhibit, the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Court instructs Apple either to justify the sealing

11

through its own declarations or to specify which

12

party it believes to be the designating party

13

charged with the responsibility to file a

14

declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

15

The Court grants Apple seven days from the date of

16

this order to file its resubmission.

17

the designating party, if any, will have an

18

opportunity to file a declaration in support of

19

sealing the document, pursuant to Civil Local Rule

20

79-5(e)(1).

21

Thereafter,

Fifth, Apple moves for leave to file under seal

22

Exhibit 7 to the Liao Declaration because it is

23

subject to a protective order from investigation

24

337-TA-775.

25

prehearing brief from the United States

26

International Trade Commission.

27

subject to a protective order and the Court finds it

Exhibit 7 consists of two pages from a

28
9

The document is

1

appropriate to grant Apple's motion for leave to

2

file the material under seal.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

3

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 346).

4
5

375

Plaintiff Linex Technologies seeks permission

6

to file under seal several different types of

7

materials.

8

several parts.

9

of the Ho Declaration.

The Court considers this request in
First, Linex seeks to seal Exhibit A
Exhibit A is an excerpt from

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a confidential brief from investigation 337-TA-775.

11

In support of its motion to seal, Linex submits a

12

declaration from Robert F. McCauley, in which

13

McCauley states that Exhibit A is subject to the

14

protective order of that investigation.

15

the case, the Court finds it appropriate to permit

16

the material to be filed under seal.

17

This being

Second, Linex seeks to file under seal

18

materials containing information designated by

19

Defendants as confidential business information.

20

Linex seeks to file under seal the following

21

portions of its opposition to Defendants' motion for

22

fees: page 1, lines 12-13 and 15; page 3, lines 8-

23

11; page 6, lines 6 and 9-10; page 6, line 24

24

through page 7, line 2; page 7, lines 4 and 5; page

25

10, lines 16-20; portions of footnote 5 beginning on

26

page 10 and continuing on page 11; page 11, line 3;

27

page 13, lines 11-13; page 15, lines 2-7 and 10-17;

28
10

1

page 16, lines 7-12 and 16-17; page 18, lines 10-12,

2

14-15 and 17-20; and page 19, lines 4-11, 13-16, 18-

3

20.

4

corrected declaration on behalf of Apple; L. Scott

5

Oliver filed a declaration on behalf of Aruba, Meru

6

and Ruckus.

7

speak to the redactions on pages 18 and 19 of the

8

brief; they write that the redacted information is

9

about attorney billing rates and maintain that it

Martin E. Gilmore filed a declaration and a

The Gilmore and Oliver Declarations

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ought to be sealed because it provides facts

11

regarding the firms' billing structure and is

12

"confidential and proprietary."

13

permit this information to be redacted, on identical

14

reasoning as the Court's discussion of the motion to

15

seal at docket number 344, above.

16

Declaration also speaks to information on pages 10

17

to 11, which contains confidential technical

18

information about Defendants' products.

19

finds that this request is narrowly-tailored and

20

falls within the class of materials that may be

21

filed under seal.

22

remaining portions of the brief sought to be filed

23

under seal.

24

as to the redactions on pages 10 and 11 only.

25

review of the redactions on pages 1, 3, 6-7, 13, 15

26

and 16 reveals that good cause may exist for

27

permitting those redactions to stand; however, the

The Court will not

The Oliver

The Court

Neither declaration addresses the

Accordingly, the motion will be granted

28
11

A

1

record does not appear to contain any declarations

2

justifying the redactions.

3

the otherwise-applicable procedure provided in Civil

4

Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) to permit Linex to resubmit

5

its administrative motion with respect to this

6

document.

7

instructs Linex either to justify the redaction

8

through its own declarations or to specify which

9

Defendant it believes to be the designating party

The Court will modify

For each proposed redaction, the Court

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

charged with the responsibility to file a

11

declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

12

The Court grants Linex seven days from the date of

13

this order to file its resubmission.

14

the designating party, if any, will have an

15

opportunity to file a declaration in support of

16

sealing the document, pursuant to Civil Local Rule

17

79-5(e)(1).

18

Thereafter,

Next, Linex moves for leave to file under seal

19

several documents containing sensitive technical

20

and/or financial information about Defendants'

21

products: pages 91, 92, 102 and 103 of Exhibit D to

22

the Ho Declaration and Exhibits F, G, H, I, J, K, L,

23

M and N to the Ho Declaration.

24

excerpt from Prucnal's initial expert report, and

25

the Gilmore and Oliver Declarations claim that

26

Exhibit D and the redactions on pages 91, 92, 102

27

and 103 contain confidential technical information

28
12

Exhibit D is an

1

about Defendants' products.

The Court agrees that

2

this material may be filed under seal and grants

3

Linex's motion to that effect.

4

Oliver Declarations explain, Exhibits F, H and N—the

5

expert report of Walter Bratic, the supplemental

6

expert report of Walter Bratic and the expert

7

rebuttal report of John L. Hansen, respectively—

8

discuss confidential information regarding sales and

9

licenses of Defendants' products.

As the Gilmore and

Leave to file

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

these materials under seal will, therefore, be

11

granted.

12

deposition transcript of Dave Quong; the Oliver

13

Declaration claims it contains confidential

14

information and public disclosure would harm Aruba.

15

The Court agrees that this material may be filed

16

under seal and the motion will be granted to that

17

effect.

18

transcript of Fred Harried; the Oliver Declaration

19

claims it contains confidential information

20

regarding Ruckus's component suppliers and public

21

disclosure would harm Ruckus.

22

this material may be filed under seal and will

23

therefore grant the motion to that effect.

24

K is an excerpt from the deposition transcript of

25

Mark Buckley; the Gilmore Declaration claims that

26

the materials contain information about Apple's

27

component suppliers and public disclosure would harm

Exhibit I is an excerpt from the

Exhibit J is an excerpt from the deposition

28
13

The Court agrees that

Exhibit

1

Apple.

The Court agrees that this material may be

2

filed under seal and accordingly grants the motion

3

to that effect.
Finally, no party has filed a declaration

4

claiming any confidentiality with respect to

6

Exhibits G, L and M; accordingly Linex's motion for

7

leave to file these materials under seal will be

8

denied.

9

Linex's opposition brief discussed above, a review

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

of Exhibits G, L and M reveals that good cause may

11

exist for permitting the Exhibits to be filed under

12

seal.

13

applicable procedure provided in Civil Local Rule

14

79-5(f)(3) to permit Linex to resubmit its

15

administrative motion with respect to these

16

Exhibits.

17

Linex either to justify the sealing through its own

18

declarations or to specify which Defendant it

19

believes to be the designating party charged with

20

the responsibility to file a declaration pursuant to

21

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The Court grants Linex

22

seven days from the date of this order to file its

23

resubmission.

24

any, will have an opportunity to file a declaration

25

in support of sealing the document, pursuant to

26

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

27

However, similar to the redactions to

The Court will modify the otherwise-

For each Exhibit, the Court instructs

Thereafter, the designating party, if

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

28
14

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 375).

1
2

381

Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek

3

permission to file under seal portions of their

4

reply brief in support of their motion for

5

attorneys' fees.

6

redact two portions: the redaction on page 3

7

contains confidential information regarding

8

attorneys' fees and the redaction on page 5 contains

9

information designated by Linex as confidential

These Defendants seek leave to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

business information.

With regard to the redactions

11

regarding attorney billing fees, the Court will not

12

permit this information to be redacted, on identical

13

reasoning as the Court's discussion of the motion to

14

seal at docket number 344, above.

15

the redactions for which Linex is the designating

16

party, the request to file the material under seal

17

will be denied because Linex did not file a

18

declaration in support, as required by the

19

District's Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

20

the redaction on page 5 reveals that good cause may

21

exist for permitting the redaction to stand;

22

however, the record does not appear to contain any

23

declarations justifying the redactions.

24

will modify the otherwise-applicable procedure

25

provided in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2) to permit

26

Defendants to resubmit their administrative motion

27

with respect to this redaction.

28
15

With regard to

A review of

The Court

The Court instructs

1

Defendants either to justify the redaction through

2

their own declarations or to specify which party

3

they believe to be the designating party charged

4

with the responsibility to file a declaration

5

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

6

grants Defendants seven days from the date of this

7

order to file their resubmission.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

8
381).

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court

417

Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek

11

permission to file under seal information regarding

12

their attorneys' fees and billing rates: portions of

13

the Oliver Declaration and Exhibits A-O to the

14

Oliver Declaration.

15

Declaration that Defendants seek to redact give

16

hourly billing rates of Defendants' attorneys.

17

Court will not permit this information to be

18

redacted, on identical reasoning as the Court's

19

discussion of the motion to seal at docket number

20

344, above.

21

are billing sheets for Defendants' attorneys.

22

his declaration supporting the sealing of these

23

documents, Oliver argues in part that public

24

disclosure of these billing sheets "would provide

25

insight into Defendants' confidential case

26

strategy. . . ."

27

Exhibits A-O reveals that many of the entries are

The portions of the Oliver

The

Exhibits A-O to the Oliver Declaration
In

However, the Court's review of

28
16

1

commonplace attorney services that provide no

2

insight into legal strategy.

3

finds that the motion to seal is not narrowly

4

tailored and denies the motion on that basis.

5

Court will modify the otherwise-applicable procedure

6

provided in Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2) to permit

7

Defendants to resubmit their administrative motion

8

with respect to these Exhibits.

9

Defendants seven days from the date of this order to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The Court therefore

The

The Court grants

file their resubmission.
Defendants also seek leave to file under seal

12

Exhibit P to the Oliver Declaration.

Exhibit P

13

contains pages from the 2013 Report of the Economic

14

Survey, published by the American Intellectual

15

Property Law Association, and according to Oliver's

16

declaration filed in support of the motion to seal

17

the AIPLA restricts access to this document.

18

Pursuant to this District's Local Rule 79-5(e), a

19

party seeking leave to file a document designated as

20

confidential by a non-party must serve the

21

declaration in support on the non-party and must

22

file proof of service with the Court.

23

does not reflect that service on AIPLA was

24

accomplished.

25

file this material under seal will be denied for

26

failure to comply with the local rules.

27

appears that AIPLA, a non-party, may have an

The docket

Accordingly, the motion for leave to

28
17

Because it

1

interest in keeping the report confidential, the

2

Court will permit Defendants to resubmit their

3

administrative motion as to the report and to serve

4

AIPLA properly with notice of the motion.

5

grants Defendants seven days from the date of this

6

order to file its resubmission.

7

will have an opportunity to file a declaration in

8

support of sealing the document, pursuant to Civil

9

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

The Court

Thereafter, AIPLA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Finally, Defendants also seek leave to file

11

under seal portions of their supplemental memorandum

12

on attorneys' fees.

13

supplemental memorandum are billing rates for their

14

attorneys or data taken from the AIPLA report.

15

the extent that the information is hourly billing

16

rates of their attorneys, the Court will not permit

17

this information to be redacted, on identical

18

reasoning as the Court's discussion of the motion to

19

seal at docket number 344, above.

20

redactions of information from the AIPLA report, the

21

Court denies the motion on identical reasoning as

22

the Court's discussion of the motion to seal the

23

AIPLA report, above, but will permit Defendants to

24

resubmit their administrative motion as to the

25

redactions of information from the AIPLA report and

26

to serve AIPLA properly with notice of the motion.

27

The Court grants Defendants seven days from the date

The redacted portions of the

28
18

To

As for the

1

of this order to file its resubmission.

2

AIPLA will have an opportunity to file a declaration

3

in support of sealing the document, pursuant to

4

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

5
417).

6
7

Thereafter,

420

Defendant HP seeks permission to file under

8

seal portions of the declaration of Laura E.

9

Muschamp and two exhibits, filed in support of HP's

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and Apple's supplemental submission in support of

11

their motion for attorneys' fees.

12

to seal portions of the declaration containing

13

business information: page 8, lines 7-11, 13-16 and

14

19-22 of the Muschamp Declaration.

15

declaration of Alan H. Blankenheimer in support of

16

its motion; the Blankenheimer Declaration states

17

that some of the redacted information is the

18

parties' confidential business information, as

19

designated under the Protective Order for this case.

20

The Court agrees that the above-listed information

21

from page 8 of the Muschamp Declaration is

22

confidential business information and it is

23

appropriate for HP to redact it from the public

24

record in this case.

25

this effect.

First, HP seeks

HP filed a

HP's motion will be granted to

26

HP also seeks leave to file under seal portions

27

of the Muschamp Declaration involving its attorneys'

28
19

1

fees and billing: page 1, lines 17 and 27; page 2,

2

lines 2, 6-8 and 11; page 3, line 8; page 5, lines

3

17, 22 and 26; page 7, line 27; page 9, line 5; page

4

10, lines 5, 10, 12-13, 16, 19, 21-22 and 24; page

5

11, lines 15, 18-20, 22, 24-26 and 28; page 12, line

6

3; page 14, lines 1-4; Exhibit 5; and Exhibit 6.

7

The Blankenheimer Declaration seeks leave to file

8

these materials under seal because the rates are

9

negotiated in a confidential agreement between HP

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and its law firm and disclosure in the public record

11

would disadvantage HP and its firm in future fee

12

negotiations.

13

information to be redacted, on identical reasoning

14

as the Court's discussion of the motion to seal at

15

docket number 344, above.

16

to the above-listed materials.

HP's motion is denied as

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and

17

GRANTED in part (Docket No. 420).

18
19

The Court will not permit this

423

Defendant Apple seeks leave to file under seal

20

materials involving its attorneys' fees and billing:

21

portions of HP's and Apple's supplemental submission

22

in support of their motion for attorneys' fees,

23

portions of the Reilly Declaration filed in support

24

of HP's and Apple's supplemental submission,

25

Exhibits A and D to the Reilly Declaration and

26

portions of the Scarsi Declaration filed in support

27

of Apple's supplemental submission.

28
20

A declaration

1

in support by Elizabeth M. Reilly argues that this

2

information should be filed under seal because it

3

reveals confidential financial relationships between

4

the law firms, Apple and DiscoverReady, a third

5

party vendor providing legal services.

6

will not permit this information to be redacted, on

7

identical reasoning as the Court's discussion of the

8

motion to seal at docket number 344, above.

9

motion is denied.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Apple's

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

10
423).

11
12

The Court

426

Plaintiff Linex Technologies seeks permission

13

to file under seal materials regarding HP's and

14

Apple's attorneys' fees and billing: Exhibits 2, 3,

15

4 and 5 to the Sanabria Declaration.

16

declaration from Robert F. McCauley, submitted in

17

support of its motion to seal, the exhibits contain

18

confidential information from Apple.

19

is the designating party, it is responsible for

20

supporting the motion with a declaration

21

establishing that the material is sealable.

22

L.R. 79-5(e).

23

accordingly, the request to file the material under

24

seal will be denied.

Because Apple

Civ.

Apple filed no such declaration, and

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

25
426).

26
27

According to a

430

Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek

28
21

1

permission to file under seal Exhibits A1-O1 to the

2

declaration of L. Scott Oliver, filed in support of

3

their addendum to their supplemental memorandum on

4

attorneys' fees.

5

seal, Defendants submit a declaration from L. Scott

6

Oliver, claiming that the exhibits reveal

7

information that would be harmful to Defendants

8

because it could provide insight into Defendants'

9

confidential case strategy, and confidential and

In support of their motion to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

proprietary business and product information.

11

Exhibits A1-O1 are attorney billing statements.

12

with the motion filed under docket number 417,

13

above, the Court's review of Exhibits A1-O1 reveals

14

that many of the entries are commonplace attorney

15

services that provide no insight into legal

16

strategy.

17

to seal is not narrowly tailored and denies the

18

motion on that basis.

19

otherwise-applicable procedure provided in Civil

20

Local Rule 79-5(f)(2) to permit Defendants to

21

resubmit their administrative motion with respect to

22

these Exhibits.

23

days from the date of this order to file their

24

resubmission.

The Court therefore finds that the motion

The Court will modify the

The Court grants Defendants seven

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No.

25
26

As

430).

27
28
22

1

Also pending is HP's and Apple's motion for in camera review.

2

(Docket No. 419).

3

review in camera four exhibits to Laura E. Muschamp's declaration

4

and four exhibits to Elizabeth M. Reilly's declaration, both filed

5

in support of HP's and Apple's supplemental submission in support

6

of their attorneys' fees award.

7

the motion.

8
9

In their motion, HP and Apple ask the Court to

Linex filed a response opposing

In their motion, HP and Apple argue that the exhibits, which
they describe as "invoices and spreadsheets containing detailed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

attorney time entry information, which disclose HP's and Apple's

11

confidential case strategies," are protected by the work product

12

and attorney-client privileges.

13

an award of attorneys' fees requires review of counsel's

14

unredacted legal invoices, courts in the Ninth Circuit typically

15

conduct this review in camera. . . ."

16

its responsive brief, HP and Apple haven't proven the premise of

17

their argument, namely, that the award of fees requires review of

18

unredacted records.

19

declarations providing hourly billing rates and total fees

20

incurred by each law firm, information that is plainly inadequate

21

to allow Linex to check the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

22

It appears that HP and Apple made no effort to provide redacted

23

billing statements.

24

review circumvents the adversarial process, removes Linex's

25

opportunity to inspect HP's and Apple's justifications for their

26

claimed fees, and shifts the burden of addressing reasonableness

27

in the first instance from counsel to the Court.

28

reasons, the Court concludes that HP's and Apple's request for in

HP and Apple then argue, "Where

However, as Linex argues in

Thus far, HP and Apple have provided only

Moreover, the Court is mindful that in camera

23

For all of these

1

camera review is inappropriate in this case, and denies their

2

motion.
CONCLUSION

3

For the reasons set forth above, HP's administrative motion

5

to seal (Docket No. 344) is DENIED; Aruba's, Meru's and Ruckus's

6

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 345) is DENIED in part

7

and GRANTED in part; Apple's administrative motion to seal (Docket

8

No. 346) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; Linex's

9

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 375) is DENIED in part

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

and GRANTED in part; Aruba's, Meru's and Ruckus's administrative

11

motion to seal (Docket No. 381) is DENIED; Aruba's, Meru's and

12

Ruckus's administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 417) is DENIED;

13

HP's and Apple's administrative motion for in camera review

14

(Docket No. 419) is DENIED; HP's administrative motion to seal

15

(Docket No. 420) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; Apple's

16

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 423) is DENIED; Linex's

17

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 426) is DENIED; and

18

Aruba's, Meru's and Ruckus's administrative motion to seal (Docket

19

No. 430) is DENIED.

20

The parties shall refer to the District's Civil Local Rules

21

79-5(e)(2) and (f)(1)-(3) for additional instruction on their

22

options and responsibilities for the filing of further documents

23

in compliance with this Order.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 8, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
24