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

Filing 475

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ADMINISTRATIVE (Denying 438 ; Granting in part and Denying in part 440 ; Denying 446 ; Granting 452 ; Granting in part and Denying in part 458 ; Granting in part and Denying in part 466 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2015)

Download PDF
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 No. C 13-159 CW Plaintiff, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; APPLE COMPUTER INC.; ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.; MERU NETWORKS, INC.; RUCKUS WIRELESS, (Docket Nos. 438, 440, 446, 452, 458 and 466) Defendants. ________________________________/ Before the Court are several administrative motions to seal. 12 Pursuant to 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 under seal in this case are related to motions for attorneys' 27 fees, a non-dispositive motion. 28 related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause by making Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Id. In considering a sealing The documents sought to be filed A party seeking to seal materials 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 8 No. 9 438 Ruling Plaintiff Linex seeks permission to file under United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 seal portions of its Opposition to Defendants Aruba, 11 Meru and Ruckus's Supplemental Submissions on 12 Attorneys' Fees and Exhibits 1-4 to the Ho 13 Declaration filed in support of its Opposition. 14 support of its motion to seal, Linex states that the 15 redacted portions of the Opposition brief and 16 Exhibits 1-3 to the Ho Declaration contain 17 information designated as confidential by Aruba, 18 Meru and Ruckus and that Exhibit 4 to the Ho 19 Declaration contains information from the American 20 Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). 21 In The redacted portions of Linex's Opposition 22 contain tabulations of attorney fees, hourly billing 23 rates and quotations of specific billing entries, 24 information designated by Aruba, Meru and Ruckus as 25 confidential. 26 are tables prepared by Linex containing and 27 categorizing billing entries from Aruba, Meru and Exhibits 1-3 to the Ho Declaration 28 2 1 Ruckus. 2 from Eric Rusnak in support of the motion to seal. 3 Consistent with this Court's December 8, 2014 order 4 on administrative motions to seal, and for the 5 reasons explicated therein, Linex's motion is denied 6 to the extent that the redacted information is 7 hourly billing rates and calculations of total fees. 8 9 Aruba, Meru and Ruckus filed a declaration Some redacted excerpts from Linex's Opposition and Exhibits 1-3 to the Ho Declaration recite United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 billing entries from Defendants' motion for fees. 11 The Court's December 8, 2014 Order denied 12 Defendants' motion to seal the documents containing 13 those billing entries because their request was not 14 narrowly tailored and permitted Defendants the 15 opportunity to resubmit a motion to seal specific 16 entries. 17 they will refile unredacted versions of those 18 documents. 19 motion is predicated on Defendants' claims of 20 confidentiality which have since been abandoned, the 21 Court denies Linex's motion with regard to those 22 excerpts from the Opposition and Exhibits 1-3 to the 23 Ho Declaration. 24 Defendants have since represented that (Docket No. 458). Because Linex's This leaves Exhibit 4, the AIPLA report, and 25 portions of the Opposition that cite the AIPLA 26 report. 27 5(e), a party seeking leave to file a document Pursuant to this District's Local Rule 79- 28 3 1 designated as confidential by a non-party must serve 2 the declaration in support on the non-party and must 3 file proof of service with the Court. 4 does not reflect that service on AIPLA was 5 accomplished. 6 file this material under seal is denied for failure 7 to comply with the local rules. 8 that AIPLA, a non-party, may have an interest in 9 keeping the report confidential, the Court will The docket Accordingly, the motion for leave to Because it appears United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 permit Linex to resubmit its administrative motion 11 as to the report and information from the report and 12 to serve AIPLA properly with notice of the motion. 13 The Court grants Linex seven days from the date of 14 this order to file its resubmission. 15 AIPLA will have an opportunity to file a declaration 16 in support of sealing the document, pursuant to 17 Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 18 438). 19 20 Thereafter, 440 Plaintiff Linex seeks permission to file under 21 seal portions of its Opposition to Defendants Apple 22 and HP's Supplemental Submissions on Attorneys' Fees 23 and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Ho Declaration filed in 24 support of its Opposition. 25 to seal, Linex states that the redacted portions of 26 the Opposition brief and Exhibit 1 to the Ho 27 Declaration contain information designated as 28 4 In support of its motion 1 confidential by Apple and HP and that Exhibit 2 to 2 the Ho Declaration contains information from the 3 AIPLA. 4 The redacted portions of Linex's Opposition 5 contain tabulations of attorney fees, hourly billing 6 rates and quotations of specific billing entries, 7 information designated by Apple and HP as 8 confidential. 9 Prucnal's expert report. Exhibit 1 to the Ho Declaration is Apple filed a declaration United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 from Elizabeth Reilly in support of the motion to 11 seal these items. 12 December 8, 2014 order on administrative motions to 13 seal, and for the reasons explicated therein, 14 Linex's motion is denied to the extent that the 15 redacted information is hourly billing rates and 16 calculations of total fees. 17 Reilly Declaration, Exhibit 1 to the Ho Declaration 18 is comprised of excerpts from expert reports from 19 Prucnal and Acampora containing confidential 20 business information. 21 request to file this material under seal is narrowly 22 tailored and that Exhibit 1 falls within the class 23 of documents that may be filed under seal. 24 Accordingly, the motion is granted as to this 25 material. 26 27 Consistent with this Court's As explained in the The Court finds that the Exhibit 2 to the Ho Declaration is the AIPLA report; the Court denies the motion on identical 28 5 1 reasoning as the Court's discussion of the motion to 2 seal the AIPLA report, above, but will permit Linex 3 to resubmit its administrative motion as to the 4 redactions of information from the AIPLA report and 5 to serve AIPLA properly with notice of the motion. 6 The Court grants Linex seven days from the date of 7 this order to file its resubmission. 8 AIPLA will have an opportunity to file a declaration 9 in support of sealing the document, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). 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. 440). 12 13 Thereafter, 446 Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek 14 permission to file under seal portions of their 15 Supplemental Memorandum on Attorneys' Fees and 16 Exhibit P to the Oliver Declaration. 17 a resubmission following this Court's denial of a 18 previous motion. 19 Defendants filed a declaration from L. Scott Oliver, 20 in which Oliver explains that the redacted 21 information contains proprietary information 22 published by AIPLA. 23 Local Rule 79-5(e), a party seeking leave to file a 24 document designated as confidential by a non-party 25 must serve the declaration in support on the non- 26 party and must file proof of service with the Court. 27 Defendants filed a corrected certificate of service This motion is In support of their motion, Pursuant to this District's 28 6 for the motion (Docket No. 454); however, the 2 corrected certificate raises questions as to whether 3 service was accomplished. 4 states that service was accomplished by emailing a 5 PDF of the document to the recipients, but then does 6 not list an email address for the AIPLA. 7 typical operation of the District's Local Rule would 8 require that the material sought to be filed under 9 seal be filed on the public record when a third 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 party does not respond to notice of a motion to 11 seal. 12 service was actually accomplished, and thus the 13 Court will not order the material to be publicly 14 filed. 15 more chance to document service properly, to ensure 16 that AIPLA has an opportunity to file documents with 17 the Court in support of sealing its materials. 18 Court grants Defendants seven days from the date of 19 this order to file its resubmission. 20 AIPLA will have an opportunity to file a declaration 21 in support of sealing the document, pursuant to 22 Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The However the Court is not satisfied that Instead, the Court will give Defendants one The Thereafter, Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 23 446). 24 25 The corrected certificate 452 Plaintiff Linex seeks permission to file under 26 seal portions of its Opposition to Defendants' 27 Motion for Fees, as well as Exhibits G, L and M to 28 7 1 the Ho Declaration, filed in support of its 2 Opposition. 3 contain information designated as confidential by HP 4 and that Exhibit L contains information designated 5 as confidential by Aruba, Meru and Ruckus. 6 further states that the redactions on pages 1, 3, 6 7 and 7 of its Opposition contain information from the 8 Pre-Hearing Brief from an International Trade 9 Commission (ITC) investigation and is therefore Linex states that Exhibits G and M United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 subject to the protective order of that 11 investigation. 12 and 16 contain information designated as 13 Linex confidential by all Defendants. 14 Finally, redactions on pages 13, 15 HP filed a declaration from Michael K. Plimack 15 in support of sealing Exhibits G and M. 16 Declaration states that Exhibits G and M contain 17 information from confidential expert reports and 18 confidential business information. 19 that the request to file this material under seal is 20 narrowly tailored and that the Exhibits fall within 21 the class of documents that may be filed under seal. 22 Accordingly, the motion is granted as to this 23 material. 24 The Plimack The Court finds Aruba, Meru and Ruckus filed a declaration from 25 L. Scott Oliver in support of sealing Exhibit L. 26 The Oliver Declaration states that Exhibit L 27 contains expert reports and confidential information 28 8 1 regarding Defendants' costs and licenses. 2 finds that the request to file this material under 3 seal is narrowly tailored and that the Exhibit falls 4 within the class of documents that may be filed 5 under seal. 6 to this material. 7 The Court Accordingly, the motion is granted as Apple filed a declaration from Elizabeth M. 8 Reilly in support of sealing the redacted excerpts 9 on pages 1, 3, 6 and 7 of Linex's Opposition. The United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Reilly Declaration explains that the information is 11 from a report prepared for an ITC proceeding that 12 prohibits public disclosure of the information. 13 Court finds that the request to file this material 14 under seal is narrowly tailored and that the 15 excerpts fall within the class of materials that may 16 be filed under seal. 17 granted as to this material. 18 The Accordingly, the motion is Finally, the Opposition contains redactions on 19 pages 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 for which no party has 20 filed a declaration in support of sealing. 21 the Court's review of the redactions shows that 22 Linex's redactions cite to documents on the docket 23 that are sealed pursuant to prior orders of the 24 Court, for example expert reports filed at Docket 25 Numbers 267-3 and 353, and information from the ITC 26 proceeding. 27 filed under seal for the same reasons as it cited in However, The Court permits the material to be 28 9 1 previous orders allowing the sealing of the 2 materials to which the redactions refer. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED (Docket No. 3 452). 4 5 458 Defendants Aruba, Meru and Ruckus seek to file several materials under seal. 7 file Exhibits J-O to the Oliver Declaration in 8 support of their Supplemental Memorandum on 9 Attorneys' fees and Exhibits J1-O1 to the Oliver 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 6 First, they wish to Declaration in support of their Addendum to their 11 Supplemental Memorandum. 12 exhibits should be filed under seal because they 13 contain privileged and confidential information 14 related to work performed on the defense of this 15 case, as well as confidential information regarding 16 disbursements to experts. 17 billing sheets for Defendants' attorneys. 18 Court's review of the exhibits reveals that many of 19 the entries are commonplace attorney services that 20 provide no insight into legal strategy, privileged 21 information or confidential information. 22 therefore finds that the motion to seal is not 23 narrowly tailored and denies the motion on that 24 basis. 25 applicable procedure provided in Civil Local Rule 26 79-5(f)(2) to permit Defendants to resubmit their 27 administrative motion with respect to these Defendants argue that the These exhibits are The The Court The Court will modify the otherwise- 28 10 1 exhibits. The Court grants Defendants seven days 2 from the date of this order to file their 3 resubmission. Defendants also move to seal an excerpt found 4 on page 3 of their Reply in support of their Motion 6 for Attorneys' fees, on the grounds that it contains 7 materials Linex has designated as confidential. 8 Linex filed a declaration from Kenie Ho in support 9 of sealing the excerpt on the grounds that it 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 contains confidential information regarding a 11 financial agreement with a third party. 12 finds that the redacted information is confidential 13 and falls within the class of materials that may be 14 filed under seal. 15 granted as to this material. Accordingly, the motion is Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and 16 GRANTED in part (Docket No. 458). 17 18 The Court 466 Defendant Apple seeks leave to file under seal 19 excerpts on pages 7 and 8 from its Motion for 20 Attorneys' Fees along with Exhibit 6 to the 21 Declaration from Andrew L. Liao on the grounds that 22 the materials are subject to a protective order from 23 the ITC investigation. 24 to seal with respect to these materials. The Court grants the motion 25 Apple also seeks leave to file under seal 26 excerpts from its motion found on pages 3, 4, 6 and 27 7 and Exhibit 2 to the Liao Declaration on the 28 11 1 grounds that Linex considers such information to be 2 confidential. 3 Ho; the Ho Declaration states that Exhibits 2 and 6 4 contain sensitive business information regarding 5 Linex's patent prosecution. 6 the information is confidential and falls within the 7 class of materials that may be filed under seal. 8 Accordingly, the motion is granted as to this 9 material. Linex filed a declaration from Kenie The Court finds that The Ho Declaration does not speak to the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 redacted information on pages 3, 4, 6 and 7 of 11 Apple's declaration. 12 Apple's motion to file that information under seal. 13 14 15 16 The Court accordingly denies Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part (Docket No. 466). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Linex's administrative 17 motion to seal at Docket No. 438 is DENIED; Linex's administrative 18 motion to seal at Docket No. 440 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in 19 part; Aruba, Meru and Ruckus's administrative motion to seal at 20 Docket No. 446 is DENIED; Linex's administrative motion to seal at 21 Docket No. 452 is GRANTED; Aruba, Meru and Ruckus's administrative 22 motion to seal at Docket No. 458 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in 23 part and Apple's administrative motion to seal at Docket No. 466 24 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 25 26 The parties shall refer to the District's Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)(2) and (f)(1)-(3) for additional instruction on their 27 28 12 1 options and responsibilities for the filing of further documents 2 in compliance with this order. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2015 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 13

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?