Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.
Filing
287
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES ADMINISTRATIVE ( 181 , 182 , 230 , 247 , 279 , 280 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
VMWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 181, 182, 230, 247, 279, 280
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Pending before the Court are several administrative motions to file various documents
12
13
under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, relating to Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies’
14
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant VMware, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motions in limine (“MIL”) and
15
charging conference statements. See Dkt. Nos. 181, 182, 230, 247, 279, 280. No oppositions to
16
the motions were filed. Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, the Court
17
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions to seal.
18
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
20
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard
21
derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
22
judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
23
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
24
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this
25
strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
26
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
27
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79
28
(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons
1
sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist
2
when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of
3
records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
4
trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must
5
“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial
6
records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial
7
records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its
8
ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal
9
quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,
12
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request must
13
be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
14
Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a
15
case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
16
LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must
17
meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at
18
1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or
19
harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors
20
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see
21
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
22
II.
DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the documents at issue
23
24
have more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at
25
1099 (stating that “plenty of technically non-dispositive motions—including routine motions in
26
limine—are strongly correlative to the merits of a case.”). The Court rules as follows:
27
//
28
//
2
Motion
181
181
Document
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3
181
181
181
181
181
Declaration of Whitty
Somvichian in Support of
Plaintiff’s MIL (“Somvichian
Decl.”), Exhibit 4
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 5
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 6
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 7
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 8
181
181
181
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 11
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 12
Somvichian Decl., Exhibit 14
182
Defendant’s MIL #1
11
182
182
Defendant’s MIL #2
Defendant’s MIL #3
12
182
Defendant’s MIL #4
13
182
Defendant’s MIL #5
14
182
Declaration of Michael A.
Jacobs in Support of
Defendant’s MIL # 1-5
(“Jacobs Decl.”), Exhibit 2
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 3
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 4
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 5
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 7
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 9
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 10
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 13
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 16
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 17
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 18
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
22
23
24
182
182
230
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 22
Jacobs Decl., Exhibit 23
Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2
230
Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4
Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s MIL No. 5
Declaration of Michael A.
Jacobs in Opposition to
25
26
27
28
230
230
Ruling
GRANTED
DENIED as to 2:21; 3:10-12;
3:21-22; 3:27; 4:1;
GRANTED as to 93:17-95:11
Reason
Confidential Business Agreement.
No Declaration in Support
DENIED
DENIED
GRANTED
GRANTED as to 111:12,
111:18-113:21; 127:15
GRANTED
GRANTED
DENIED as to 2:1-28
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
DENIED as to rest of Exhibit
DENIED as to 3:7-9; 3:15-17;
3:21-22; 3:27; 4:25; 4:25-26
GRANTED as to 1:19; 2:24-28
GRANTED as to 1:20; 1:21;
1:22
GRANTED as to 1:8; 1:9; 1:10;
2:23; 2:24
GRANTED as to 1:12; 1:13;
2:13; 2:15
DENIED
Confidential Business Agreement.
Confidential Business Agreement.
Confidential Business Information.
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support.
No Declaration in Support
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
No Declaration in Support
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED as to 409:1-15,
409:22-410:1, 410:5-15,
410:24-411:4, 411:12-18,
411:23-412:3, 412:6, 413:14
DENIED
DENIED
GRANTED as to 1:2-3; 1:2224; 2:4; 3:3; 3:4-5; 3:7; 3:1011; 3:28-4:4; 4:13; 4:27; and
5:1
DENIED as to 1:4-6; 1:7-9
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
Confidential Business Information.
DENIED as to 1:8-12; 1:14-15
No Declaration in Support
GRANTED as to 333:20-335:6
Confidential Business Information.
3
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
Confidential Business Information.
No Declaration in Support
1
230
3
230
4
230
5
230
6
230
7
230
8
230
9
230
10
230
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
230
12
230
13
247
14
247
15
16
279
280
17
280
18
19
DENIED
No Declaration in Support
DENIED as to 50:1-51:25
No Declaration in Support
GRANTED
Proprietary Third Party Information.
DENIED as to 44:1-48:25
No Declaration in Support
DENIED
No Declaration in Support
DENIED as to 45:1-48:25
No Declaration in Support
DENIED
No Declaration in Support
GRANTED as to 5:6-7; 5:n.3;
5:n.5
DENIED
Confidential Commercial
Information.
No Declaration in Support.
DENIED
DENIED as to 8:10 8:13-16
No Declaration in Support
No Declaration in Support
DENIED as to 122:7 122:17-18
123:3 123:6 123:8 124:2
No Declaration in Support
//
28
Confidential Business Agreement.
//
27
GRANTED
//
26
Confidential Business Agreement.
//
25
GRANTED
//
24
Confidential Business Information.
//
23
GRANTED as to 227:11-229:2
//
22
Confidential Business Agreement.
//
21
GRANTED
//
20
Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 1-5
(“Jacobs Decl. in Opposition”),
Exhibit 12
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 13
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 14
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 15
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 18
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 21
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 22
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 25
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 26
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 30
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 36
Jacobs Decl. in Opposition,
Exhibit 38
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s MIL No. 5
Declaration of Whitty
Somvichian in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s MIL Nos. 1-5,
Exhibit 77
Trial Exhibit 163
VMware’s Charging
Conference Statement
Gonzalez Exhibit 1
//
4
1
2
III.
CONCLUSION
While Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) typically requires the parties to file all required revised
3
redacted versions within 7 days, in the interest of receiving all revised documents in advance of
4
the April 17, 2017 charging conference, the parties are ORDERED to file all revised documents
5
by 5:00 p.m. on April 12, 2017. In addition, while VMware attorney Krystia Przepiorski provided
6
a specific reason for sealing Exhibits 19 and 20 to the Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in
7
Opposition to Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 1-5, see Dkt. No. 230-2, such a request was not included in the
8
motion to seal itself, see Dkt. No. 230. The Court will thus allow VMware the opportunity to file
9
such a request by 5:00 p.m. on April 12, 2017, if it chooses to do so.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/10/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?