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

Filing 752

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 742 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2015)

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. 742)

Before the court is one motion to file one document under seal.1 “Historically, courts have

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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 records

23
24

1

25

2

26
27

See Docket No. 742.

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

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

28
1
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1
2

relating to dispositive 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
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
18
19
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.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

9

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).
10

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

11

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

27
28

2
Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1
2

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

3
4

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

5

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

6
7

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

8
9

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

11

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14

12
13
14

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows:
Motion
Docket No.
742-4

15
16
17

Document to be Sealed
Reply in support of
IPtronics’ motion for
contempt and sanctions

Result
UNSEALED

Reason/Explanation
No declaration filed in support.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2015

18
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23

12

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.”).
13

24
25
26
27

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