Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 570

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 451 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

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

FUJITSU LIMITED,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BELKIN, )
INC.; D-LINK CORPORATION; D-LINK
)
SYSTEMS, INC.; and NETGEAR, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

18
19
20

Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

Before the Court is Fujitsu’s Motion for Administrative Relief to File the Exhibits in
Support of its Motion to Strike Improper Supplemental Opinions of Defendants’ Damages Experts
Under Seal. ECF No. 451. For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Fujitsu’s motion to

21
seal.
22
I.
23
24
25
26

Legal Standard
Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong
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
1
Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

1

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal

2

a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring

3

disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. Because the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is

4

relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only

5

demonstrate “good cause.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

6

(applying a “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions because such motions “are often

7

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action”) (internal quotation marks

8

and citation omitted).
Conversely, “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial

11

process and of significant public events.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley

12

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus,

13

a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must

14

articulate “compelling reasons” in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. “The mere fact that the

15

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

16

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz,

17

331 F.3d at 1136). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files might have

18

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

19

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (citing Nixon,

20

435 U.S. at 598).
Fujitsu’s Administrative Motion to Seal

21

II.

22

In connection with Fujitsu’s Motion to Strike, Fujitsu seeks to file five exhibits under seal

23

because Defendants designated each of these exhibits as “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes

24

Only.” Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) governs motions to seal documents designated as confidential by

25

another party. This rule requires “the designating party . . . [to] file with the Court and serve a

26

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable” within seven days of the

27

motion. However, Defendants did not file declarations establishing why these documents must be

28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

1

filed under seal. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Fujitsu’s motion to seal these

2

exhibits is DENIED without prejudice.

3
4

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Fujitsu’s Motion for Administrative Relief to

5

File the Exhibits in Support of its Motion to Strike Improper Supplemental Opinions of

6

Defendants’ Damages Experts under seal. Fujitsu shall re-file the exhibits consistent with this

7

Order within seven days.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: December 13, 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
3
Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL