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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?