Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 169

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE ( 143 , 149 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

DROPBOX INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 143, 149

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are two unopposed administrative motions to seal information

13
14

relating to claim construction briefs filed by Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.

15

(“Synchronoss”) and Defendant Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”). See Dkt. No. 143 (“Pl. Mot.”); Dkt.

16

No. 149 (“Def. Mot.”). For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS the motions.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

19

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

20

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

21

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this strong

24

presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

25

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

26

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations,

27

quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh

28

the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files

1

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private

2

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

3

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must:

4

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who
seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must
base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

5
6
7

Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

8
9

to file under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Courts

12

have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license agreements, financial

13

terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the

14

“compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017

15

WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed]

16

competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v.

17

Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015).

18

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

19

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

20

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records need

21

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22

Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific

23

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

24

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

25

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

26

II.

DISCUSSION

27

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal two documents accompanying its opening claim

28

construction brief. See Pl. Mot. at 1; Dkt. Nos. 143-5, 143-6. Plaintiff contends that its sealing
2

1

request relates to a non-dispositive motion, and thus that the “good cause” standard applies to its

2

request. See Pl. Mot. at 1. Dropbox also moves the Court for an order sealing the following

3

portions of its responsive claim construction brief:

4
5
6
7
8
9

DOCUMENT/REFERENCES
TO BE SEALED

PORTION(S) TO BE SEALED

DESIGNATING
PARTY

Dropbox’s Responsive
Claim Construction Brief

Page 7, line 21 (starting after the word
“to”) to page 7 line 21 (up to, but not
including the word “the”)

Synchronoss

Dropbox’s Responsive
Claim Construction Brief

Page 7, line 22 (starting at the beginning of
the line) to page 7 line 23 (up to, but not
including the word “Eskandari”)

Synchronoss

Dropbox’s Responsive
Claim Construction Brief

Page 7, line 24 (starting after the word
“Similarly:”) to page 7 line 25 (up to, but
not including the word “Eskandari”)

Synchronoss

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Def. Mot. at 2–3. Dropbox’s sealing request is derivative of Plaintiff’s designation of certain

14

information as confidential. See id.

15

The Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to the documents at issue, as those

16

documents bear more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety,

17

809 F.3d at 1101; Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc., No. 214CV08723ODWPJWX, 2016 WL

18

3176557, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (“Far from being ‘tangentially related’ to a patent

19

infringement suit, the court’s construction of the terms of the patent claim is often critical to the

20

outcome of such a suit.”). The Court finds that the parties’ sealing requests satisfy that standard.

21

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of sealing states that the concerned documents comprise “highly

22

confidential and proprietary information belonging to Synchronoss constituting sensitive

23

proprietary business information about the architecture of Synchronoss’s technology that is not

24

publicly available or publicly disclosed and has been maintained by Synchronoss in a confidential

25

manner.” Dkt. No. 143-1 (“Eskandari Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4. Plaintiff indicates that disclosure of this

26

information “could result in an unfair economic competitive advantage” to Plaintiff’s competitors.

27

Id.; see Miotox LLC, 2016 WL 3176557, at *2 (finding “compelling reasons” to seal where

28

publicly disclosing the plaintiff’s exhibit would “undermine [the plaintiff’s] position in the
3

1

marketplace”); In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). The

2

parties have also narrowly tailored their sealing requests to cover only information for which there

3

is good cause to seal.

4

Thus, the Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to seal. Pursuant to Civil

5

Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), those documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are

6

granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions

7

accompanying the administrative motions.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/27/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4