Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 475

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on Renewed ( 416 - 431 ) Administrative Motions to Seal. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2019)

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 ON RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 416–31

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are sixteen renewed administrative motions to file under seal

13
14

portions of various filings in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 416–31. Having carefully considered the

15

pending motions and supporting declarations, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

16

PART the parties’ motions.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
For motions to seal that comply with the local rules, courts generally apply a “compelling

19

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

20

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

21

including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

22

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept

23

secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178

24

(quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party

25

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

26

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

27

understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations, quotation marks, and alterations

28

omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure

1

and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for

2

improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

3

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation marks and citation

4

omitted). The Court must:

5

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.

6
7
8

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

9

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license

14

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”

15

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-

16

MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information

17

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);

18

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

19

June 30, 2015).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard

24

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

25

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

26

Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

27

//

28

//
2

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court previously denied numerous administrative motions to file under seal, primarily

3

because the parties did not narrowly tailor their sealing requests, as the requests sought to redact

4

substantial volumes of information otherwise unredacted in other portions of the same or other

5

filings. See Dkt. No. 407. The Court described some of the defects present in each administrative

6

motion, to explain the extent to which the parties failed to narrowly tailor their requests. The

7

Court explained, however, that those “examples [were] not meant to be an exhaustive list of the

8

parties’ failures; rather, they demonstrate[d] the myriad ways that the parties [had] not complied

9

with the local rules or otherwise submitted proper sealing requests.” Id. at 3. The Court directed
the parties to file any renewed motions to seal within fourteen days, stressing that “[t]he Court

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

expect[ed] the parties [would] use their best objective judgment to file motions that are narrowly

12

tailored, properly supported by declarations, and that satisfy the requisite standards.” Id. at 10–11.

13

As an initial matter, the parties did not submit renewed administrative motions to file under

14

seal portions of: (1) Synchronoss’s Daubert motion to exclude opinions and testimony of

15

Dropbox’s expert Dr. Roberto Tamassia, and its reply brief in support of that motion, see Dkt.

16

Nos. 315, 396; and (2) Synchronoss’s reply brief in support of its Daubert motion to exclude

17

opinions and testimony of Dropbox’s damages expert Dr. Ugone, see Dkt. No. 386. The parties

18

should thus e-file unredacted versions of those submissions.

19

Turning to the renewed sealing requests, the parties now seek redaction of sealable

20

information, such as (1) confidential agreements with third parties, (2) financial terms, and (3)

21

confidential source code. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,

22

2012 WL 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (considering “confidential source code”);

23

Finisar Corp., 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (observing that courts “regularly find that litigants may

24

file under seal contracts with third parties that contain proprietary and confidential business

25

information”); In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (finding that “license agreements,

26

financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” containing

27

“confidential business information” satisfied the “compelling reasons” standard in part because

28

sealing that information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business
3

1

model and strategy”). The parties, however, continue to seek to file under seal information that is

2

unredacted elsewhere and thus publicly available. The following chart details which portions of

3

the various filings are not sealable, for this reason:

4
5
6

Docket
Number
Public/Sealed
418-6 / 418-7

7
8
9

419-16 / 419-17

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Document

Portion(s) Sought to be
Sealed

Reason for Denial

Exhibit A to Daubert
motion to exclude
opinions and testimony
of Dropbox’s damages
expert Dr. Ugone
Exhibit G to
Opposition to Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Nisha Mody, Ph.D.

The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

All information in Table
19 other than the contents
of the column “Dr.
Mody’s Claimed
Damages As Multiples
Of Reasonableness Test.”
Highlighted portions of
pages 29–30, which refer
to “Amazon Web
Services (S3)” and
“Magic Pocket.”

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

421-6 / 421-7

Exhibit B to
Opposition to
Dropbox’s Motion for
Summary Judgment

422-4 / 422-5

Opposition to Motion
to Strike Portions of
the Expert Reports of
Christopher Alpaugh

422-8 / 422-9

Exhibit 6 to Opposition
to Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert

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

Highlighted portions on
pages 7–9 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
(S3) and/or Magic
Pocket.
Highlighted portions on
pages 29–31 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
4

The parties seek to
redact multiple
references to “Amazon
Web Services (S3)”
and “Magic Pocket” as
coupled to storage
servers. But this
information is
unredacted in exhibits
to other submissions.
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 42412 at 73 (“The clients
and block server are
coupled to either
Amazon Web Services
(S3) or ‘Magic Pocket’
via a network at least
[sic] one data structure
coupled to store
change transactions.”).
See above.

See above.

1
2

424-4 / 424-5

3
4
5

424-12 / 424-13

6
7
8

424-12 / 424-13

9
10
424-32 / 424-33

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

424-32 / 424-33

14
15
16

425-12 / 425-13

17
18
19
20

427-5 / 427-6

21

Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert
Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Exhibit 9 in Support of
Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert
Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Exhibit 9 in Support of
Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert
Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Reply in Support of
Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert
Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Reply in Support of
Motion to Strike
Portions of the Expert
Reports of Christopher
Alpaugh
Exhibit 7 to Opposition
to Motion to Strike
portions of the Rebuttal
Expert Reports of Dr.
Keith Ugone and Dr.
Michael Freedman
Exhibit 3 to Dropbox’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment

22
23

427-11 / 427-12

Exhibit 2 to Dropbox’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment

428-8 / 428-9

Exhibit B to
Opposition to Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Opinions and
Testimony of

24
25
26
27
28

(S3) and/or Magic
Pocket.
Highlighted portions of
pages 12–14 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
(S3) and/or Magic
Pocket.
Highlighted portions of
page 15 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
(S3) and/or Magic
Pocket.
Highlighted “blocks or
signatures” on pages 29
and 118.

See above.

See above.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 424-12 at 148.

Highlighted portions of
pages 5–7 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
(S3) and/or Magic
Pocket.
Highlighted portions on
page 14 that refer to
Amazon Web Services
(S3) or Magic Pocket.

See above.

The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

Highlighted portions on
pages 51, 79, and 104–05
that refer to Amazon
Web Services (S3) and/or
Magic Pocket.
Highlighted portions on
pages 29–30 and 86 that
refer to Amazon Web
Services (S3) and/or
Magic Pocket.
The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.

See above.

5

See above.

See above.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

1
2

429-48 / 429-49

3
4
5

429-52 / 429-53

6
7
8

430-6 / 430-7

9

Dropbox’s Damages
Expert Dr. Ugone
Exhibit CC to Reply in
support of Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Christopher Alpaugh
Exhibit FF to Reply in
support of Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Christopher Alpaugh
Exhibit D to Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Nisha Mody, Ph.D.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

430-18 / 430-19

12
13

430-32 / 430-33

14
15
16
17

III.

18

Exhibit R to Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Nisha Mody, Ph.D.
Exhibit X to Reply in
Support of Daubert
Motion to Exclude
Expert Opinions of
Nisha Mody, Ph.D.

The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

Reference to “universal”
on page 25.

This term is unredacted
in the surrounding
paragraphs on this
page.

Highlighted portions on
pages 51–52, 79, 104–05,
134–35, 150–51, and 155
that refer to Amazon
Web Services (S3) and/or
Magic Pocket.
The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.
The “$2.5 million” value
of the FusionOne / Apple
license agreement on
page 140.

See above.

This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.
This same information
is unredacted
elsewhere. See Dkt.
No. 417-10 at 140.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS six of the pending renewed administrative

19

motions to file under seal in their entirety. See Dkt. Nos. 416, 417, 420, 423, 426, 431. The Court

20

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the remaining ten pending renewed administrative

21

motions to file under seal. See Dkt. Nos. 418, 419, 421, 422, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429, 430. For

22

the latter, the parties are directed to e-file revised versions of the relevant submissions that do not

23

redact portions the Court identified above as nonsealable. All other portions may continue to be

24

redacted.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
6

1

Last, the parties are DIRECTED to e-file unredacted versions of (1) Synchronoss’s

2

Daubert motion to exclude opinions and testimony of Dropbox’s expert Dr. Roberto Tamassia,

3

and its reply brief in support of that motion; and (2) Synchronoss’s reply brief in support of its

4

Daubert motion to exclude opinions and testimony of Dropbox’s damages expert Dr. Ugone.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/7/2019
______________________________________
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
7