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

Filing 941

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal, granting-in-part and denying-in-part 876 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 879 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2016)

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

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

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

(Re: Docket Nos. 876, 879)

10
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Before the court are two administrative motions to seal.1 “Historically, courts have

13
14

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

15

records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

16

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

17

relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear

18

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

19

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

20
21
22

1

See Docket Nos. 876, 879.

2

23

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)).

24

3

25

4

26
27
28

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

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., Case No. 15-55084, 2016 WL 142440, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan.
11, 2016).
5

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
1

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

1

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

2

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

3

their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially

4

related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7

5

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”

6

standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9 that “specific

7

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm,

8

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective

9

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that
good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

12

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

13
14

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

15
16
17
18
19

6

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

7

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *4; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he
public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions
because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause
of action.”).
8

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

9

Id.

20
21
22
23

10

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).
11

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

12

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

24
25
13

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
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

5

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

6

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”15

7

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Docket
Document to be Sealed
Result
Reason/Explanation
No.
876-4
Defendants’ Opposition to Designations highlighted in
Narrowly tailored to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike yellow at
confidential business
Lasinski Report
1:6-7,
information.
3:1, 3:14-15, 3:19,
4:10, 4:16, 4:19, 4:22, and 4:2425
SEALED.
876-6
Koppelman Decl. ISO
Designations highlighted in
Narrowly tailored to
Defendants’ Opposition
yellow at paragraph 8 SEALED. confidential business
information.
876-8
Ex. B to Koppelman Decl. Designations highlighted in
Narrowly tailored to
yellow at 72-77 SEALED.
confidential business
information.
876-10
Ex. D to Koppelman Decl. UNSEALED.
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
876-11
Ex. F to Koppelman Decl.
Designation at 17:19 SEALED;
Only sealed portion
remainder UNSEALED.
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

8
9
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

14

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).
15

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

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

1

879-4

Avago’s Reply Motion to
Strike Lasinski Report

879-5

Ex. 1 to Chang Decl. ISO
Avago’s Reply

879-6

Ex. 2 to Chang Decl.

UNSEALED.

879-7

Ex. 3 to Chang Decl.

SEALED.

2
3
4
5

Designations highlighted in
yellow at
2:9, 2:14, 2:16, 2:17, 2:23, 2:24,
3:27-28
SEALED.
UNSEALED.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Does not contain
confidential business
information.
Does not contain
confidential business
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

4
Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL