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)
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?