Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.

Filing 466

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 452 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

VMWARE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 452
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG

12
13
14

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies LTD. filed an unopposed administrative
motion to seal portions of the trial transcripts in this case. Dkt. No. 452.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

15

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives

16

from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

17

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

18

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in

19

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

20

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

21

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record

22

related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

23

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

24

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.”

25

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general,

26

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

27

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’

28

such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

1

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact

2

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

3

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

5

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

6

certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

7

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule

8

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file

9

a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof,

10

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

12

5(b).

13

II.

DISCUSSION

14

Plaintiff seeks to seal “narrowly tailored portions of the trial transcript that contain

15

confidential and highly sensitive pricing information that could be used to Phoenix’s competitive

16

disadvantage.” Dkt. No. 452 at 2. In the pending motion to seal, Plaintiff argues that the

17

“compelling reasons” standard is met here because public access to the portions of the transcripts

18

sought to be sealed “would give current or potential customers of Phoenix insight into the

19

confidential licensing terms and pricing that Phoenix has offered to other customers, significantly

20

impairing Phoenix’s ability to negotiate pricing and other terms in the future,” and because

21

“Courts in the Northern District of California routinely seal those portions of trial transcripts that

22

contain such sensitive business information.” Id. at 2, 3 (listing cases).

23

The Court agrees that the proposed redactions of the trial transcripts contain sealable

24

material. The Court further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only

25

sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s

26

motion to seal the identified portions of the trial transcripts. See Dkt. No. 452 at 3-5 (proposing

27

the redaction of certain information contained in pages 272:2, 276:10, 314:13, 432:12, 433:4,

28

434:7, 435:12, 436:3, 436:4, 436:6, 436:10, 436:13, 437:20, 437:22, 438:10, 444:6, 472:10,
2

1

472:11, 927:23, 927:25, 928:3, 928:4, 935:9, 935:16, 935:17, 1066:24, 1506:7, 1506:11, 1506:16,

2

1506:19, and Dkt. No. 440 at Transcript of 04- 29-2016, Deposition of Deanna Wang (00:00:23)

3

as played at trial: 18:2, and Dkt. No. 440 at Transcript of 03- 31-2016, Deposition of Matt Durbin

4

(00:01:01) as played a trial: 29:13; 38:6; 41:6; 41:15; 43:22; 44:3).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/31/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3