Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Filing
103
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE ( 77 , 91 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2020)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
IPSILIUM LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Case No. 17-cv-07179-HSG
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Re: Dkt. No. 77, 91
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions
of documents in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended infringement
contentions. The Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana
v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this
strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion
must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations
omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a
1
vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
2
scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.
3
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records
4
may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,
5
without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking
6
7
to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are
8
privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The
9
request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 795(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”
12
satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-
13
MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information
14
“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);
15
Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
16
June 30, 2015).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
17
18
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
19
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This
20
requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information
21
is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th
22
Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
23
examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
24
F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
25
26
27
28
II.
DISCUSSION
Because the parties seek to seal portions of their briefs and documents which pertain to a
nondispositive motion, the Court applies the good cause standard.
The parties have satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information
2
1
contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties.
2
See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D.
3
Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d
4
1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014
5
WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties filed supporting declarations representing that
6
the identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits contain confidential
7
product information, trade secrets, and detailed source code. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 85.
8
9
The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’
administrative motions to seal. The parties executed a settlement agreement, and the pending
motion for leave to file amended infringement contentions was terminated as moot. See Dkt. No.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
100. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial
12
proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal
13
given that the Court will not rule on Plaintiff’s motion. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No.
14
11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest
15
in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not
16
have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the
17
documents divulge proprietary and confidential information unrelated to the public’s
18
understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to
19
file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-
20
HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal
21
because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re
22
iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014
23
WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and
24
irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit).
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
1
III.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to
2
Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are
3
granted will remain under seal.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: 3/16/2020
7
8
9
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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
4
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?