Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al

Filing 545

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 541 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

14
Plaintiffs,
15
16

v.
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

17

Defendants.

18

21
22

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 541)

Defendants seek to file four documents under seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized a

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of
access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive

23
24
25

1

26

2

27

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
3

28

See Docket Nos. 541.

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
1

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1
2

motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh
the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.4

3

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain

4

mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

5

their competitive interest.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

6

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

7
8
9

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive motions, the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8 that “specific

11

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of harm,

12

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A protective

13
14

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that
good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order that allows the

15
16
17

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12

18
4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

6

See id. at 1180.

7

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

Id.

19
20
21
22
23
9

24

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

25

10

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

26

11

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

27

12

28

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

1
2

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to

3

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document

4

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

5
6

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

7
8
9

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14
With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Motion
Docket No.
541-4

Document to be Sealed
Defendants’ Motion for
Discovery Sanctions

Result
UNSEALED.

Docket No.
541-6

Exhibit A to the
Brandwajn Declaration

UNSEALED.

Docket No.
541-8

Exhibit C to the
Brandwajn Declaration

UNSEALED.

Docket No.
541-10

Exhibit G to the
Brandwajn Declaration

Highlighted portions
SEALED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Reason/Explanation
“Lack of preparation” and
“inability to testify” are not
narrowly tailored to confidential
business or trade-secret
information.
Requests to seal entire swaths of
a deposition do not show narrow
tailoring to confidential business
or trade-secret information.
“Lack of preparation” and
“inability to testify” are not
narrowly tailored to confidential
business or trade-secret
information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.

Within seven days, Plaintiffs may file one or more additional declaration that is more
narrowly tailored. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5, a proposed order must contain a chart specifically

22
23
24
25
26
27

13

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unreadacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).

14

28

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1

showing what Plaintiffs seek to seal. An unredacted version must contain highlighting showing the

2

court what Plaintiffs seek to seal within that document.

3

SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: April 7, 2015

5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL