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

Filing 712

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 687 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 699 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2015)

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.,

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal six documents.1 “Historically,

14
Plaintiffs,
15
16

v.
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

17

20
21
22

Defendants.

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 687, 699)

courts have recognized a ‘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

23
24

records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

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. 687, 699.

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

“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
7

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving

8
9

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

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that

14

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

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

6

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.
687-4

Document to be Sealed
Avago’s Motion to
Compel

Docket No.
687-5

Exhibit B to the Stagg
Declaration

Docket No.
687-7

Exhibit C to the Stagg
Declaration

Docket No.
699-4
Docket No.
699-6

Exhibit 1 to the Davison
Declaration
Exhibit 16 to the Davison Designations
Declaration
highlighted in
yellow at 7:25-26;
11:23-28; 13:7-27
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Exhibit 21 to the Davison Designations
Declaration
highlighted in

13
14
15

Result
Designations
highlighted in
yellow at 3:26-4:2;
5:14-16 SEALED;
remainder
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Docket No.
699-8
13

Requests to seal entire swaths of
a deposition do not show narrow
tailoring to confidential business
or trade-secret information.
Sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.
No declaration filed in support.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information and supported by a
declaration.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business

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

Designations
highlighted in
yellow SEALED.
UNSEALED.

Reason/Explanation
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.

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

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

yellow at 8:3-4;
12:5-9; 13:16-25;
14:1-9 SEALED;
remainder
UNSEALED.

1
2
3
4

SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: August 12, 2015

6

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

information and supported by a
declaration.

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