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

Filing 830

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 814 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 814)

10
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Before the court is an administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized

13
14

a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and

15

documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor

16

of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive

17

motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh

18

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.4
However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain

19
20

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

21
22
23

1

24

2

25

See Docket No. 814.

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)).

4

Id. at 1178-79.

26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties

4

moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive

5

motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order
that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
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.

18
19
20
21
22
23

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.

24
25
12

26
27
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 GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows:

5
6
7
8

Motion
to Seal
814-4

9

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

Avago’s Motion to Strike
Portions of Lasinski Expert
Report

Designations highlighted in
yellow at
2:9-12, 25;
3:2, 4, 10, 12-13, 20, 23;
4:27
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted in
yellow at pages 66, 69, 70, 72 of
Docket No. 827-3
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations at
142:12-15;
143:6-8, 15-17, 20-21, 24-25;
144:3-6, 9, 14, 24-25;
145:15-17;
147:7-10;
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

814-5

Ex. 1 to Chang Decl. ISO
Avago’s Motion to Strike

814-6

Ex. 2 to Chang Decl. ISO
Avago’s Motion to Strike

814-7

Ex. 3 to Chang Decl. ISO
Avago’s Motion to Strike

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

No sealing requested
by designating party.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
“unredacted 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

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

3
Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

814-8

Ex. 4 to Chang Decl. ISO
Avago’s Motion to Strike

2
3
4

Dated: December 19, 2015

6
7

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

SO ORDERED.

5

Designations at
95:24;
96:1-3
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

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 GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL