Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 477

ORDER denying 469 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Fujitsu Limited, and 462 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Financial Documents of D-Link Corp. in Support of Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits (459), and Supporting Declaration of Victoria Hao (461), filed by D-Link Corporation. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/03/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FUJITSU LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BELKIN, ) INC.; D-LINK CORPORATION; D-LINK ) SYSTEMS, INC.; NETGEAR, INC.; ZYXEL ) COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; and ) ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) 19 Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL Before the Court are two administrative motions to seal documents related directly to 20 evidence to be submitted at trial. ECF Nos. 462, 469. For the reasons stated herein, the Court 21 DENIES the parties’ motions to seal. 22 I. Legal Standard 23 Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 24 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 25 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 26 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 27 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.Co., 331 F.3d 28 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal 1 Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring 2 disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. Because the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is 3 relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only 4 demonstrate “good cause.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 5 (applying a “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions because such motions “are often 6 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action”) (internal quotation marks 7 and citation omitted). Conversely, “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary 8 9 judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 process and of significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley 11 Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, 12 a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must 13 articulate “compelling reasons” in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. “The mere fact that the 14 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 15 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 16 331 F.3d at 1136). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files might have 17 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 18 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (citing Nixon, 19 435 U.S. at 598). 20 21 II. Litigants’ Administrative Motions to Seal Given the strong presumption in favor of making documents presented at trial publicly 22 available, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79, the Court will deny any requests to file exhibits or 23 other records related to trial under seal unless a party’s request is narrowly tailored and establishes 24 a “compelling reason.” 25 26 27 28 A. D-Link Corporation’s Objections to Fujitsu’s Disclosure of Exhibits PTX 302, PTX 128, and DTX 833 Defendant D-Link Corporation seeks to file under seal PTX 302, PTX 128, and DTX 833, as well as the May 29, 2012 Rebuttal Expert Report of Russell W. Mangum III to be used at trial 2 Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 on December 3, 2012. ECF No. 462. D-Link Corporation requests that these documents remain 2 under seal because they “contain sales information which is highly-confidential and should not be 3 filed on the public record.” ECF No. 462, at 2. The Court is not persuaded that D-Link Corporation’s interest in sealing sales information 4 5 outweighs the public’s interest in accessing this information. D-Link Corporation articulates no 6 facts that support a “compelling reason” to keep this information under seal. Moreover, on 7 December 2, 2012, the Court denied D-Link Corporation’s objections to the admissibility of 8 Exhibits PTX 302, PTX 128, and DTX 833. Exhibits PTX 302A and 833 were then entered into 9 evidence at trial on December 3, 2012. Thus, Defendant D-Link Corp.’s Motion for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Administrative Relief to File the Objections to Fujitsu’s Disclosure of Exhibits PTX 302, PTX 128, 11 and DTX 833 is DENIED with prejudice. 12 B. Fujitsu’s Motion for Administrative Relief to File Under Seal an Excerpt from the May 30, 2012 Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of A.J. Wang 13 Fujitsu seeks to file under seal an excerpt from the May 30, 2012 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 14 15 of A.J. Wang. ECF No. 469. Fujitsu contends that, prior to filing this document in connection 16 with Fujitsu’s Objections to D-Link System, Inc.’s Direct Examination Exhibits for A.J. Wang, 17 Fujitsu contacted counsel for D-Link Systems, Inc. to determine whether D-Link Systems, Inc. 18 would permit the filing of this document in the public record. Fujitsu had not received a response 19 at the time of filing, and therefore filed the document under seal pursuant to the terms of the 20 parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 122. As of the date of this Order, D-Link Systems has neither filed with the Court a declaration 21 22 articulating why compelling reasons exist to maintain this information under seal nor lodged and 23 served a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order. But see Civ. Local R. 79-5(d). Furthermore, the 24 Court anticipates that the substance of this document will be disclosed publicly during trial. 25 Therefore, Fujitsu’s motion to seal an excerpt of A.J. Wang’s deposition is DENIED without 26 prejudice. If D-Link Systems, Inc. continues to believe that this document must remain under seal, 27 within seven days it must set forth compelling reasons to maintain this document under seal. 28 III. Conclusion 3 Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the parties’ administrative motions to seal 2 documents. D-Link Corporation shall re-file exhibits PTX 302, PTX 128, and DTX 833, as well as 3 the May 29, 2012 Rebuttal Expert Report of Russell W. Mangum III, consistent with this Order 4 within seven days. Similarly, unless D-Link Systems, Inc. files a declaration with the Court within 5 seven days articulating why compelling reasons exist to maintain under seal an excerpt from the 6 May 30, 2012 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of A.J. Wang, Fujitsu shall re-file this document in 7 accordance with this Order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: December 3, 2012 ________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?