Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al
Filing
476
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 467 , 468 , and 469 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, )
)
v.
)
)
WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
)
)
and
)
)
WESTERN DIGITAL (THAILAND)
)
COMPANY LIMITED and
)
WESTERN DIGITAL (MALAYSIA)
)
SDN.BHD,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
20
21
22
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 467, 468, and 469)
Before the court are Defendants’ Western Digital Corp., et al. (collectively,
“Western Digital”) three renewed sealing motions. The court presumes familiarity with the
background of this case 1 and turns immediately to the motions before it.
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
Unfamiliar readers are directed to three of the court’s recent summary judgment orders.
See Docket Nos. 442, 443, and 445.
1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
1
2
A.
Sealing Motions
3
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
4
documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing
5
request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 3 Parties seeking to seal
6
judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption
7
8
9
with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure. 4
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often
12
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
13
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
14
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
15
16
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,
17
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order
18
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
19
20
21
2
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.
5
See id. at 1180.
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
7
Id.
22
23
24
25
26
8
27
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).
28
9
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
2
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
3
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
4
5
6
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
Civil L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
7
8
9
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
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
11
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
12
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13
13
II. ANALYSIS
14
A.
Western Digital’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract
15
1.
16
Exhibit 12 to the Masuda Declaration
Exhibit 12 “is a document introduced as Exhibit 67 to the Deposition of JD Buttar, an email
17
18
from Mr. Buttar to Barry Coughlin, dated October 30, 2003,” produced in this case that
19
“summarizes confidential conversations among employees from Read-Rite, Western Digital, and
20
21
22
10
23
11
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
24
See Civil 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.”).
25
12
27
Civil L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1) 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” 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.
28
13
26
Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
Guzik, and reveals character issues about Nahum Guzik, the founder of Guzik.” 14 Western Digital
2
claims that if “these conversations are publicly revealed, Nahum Guzik or Guzik could use them to
3
file a defamation lawsuit against Western Digital” or its employees and the disclosure of this
4
information “may harm Western Digital’s competitive standing.” 15 The court has reviewed
5
6
Western Digital’s representations alongside Exhibit 12 and finds Western Digital’s concerns about
this ten-year old e-mail are speculative and insufficiently particularized. Western Digital’s request
7
8
is DENIED.
2.
9
Exhibit 19 to the Masuda Declaration consists of “excerpts from the transcripts of the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Exhibit 19 to the Masuda Declaration
11
March 15, 2013 and April 19, 2013 depositions of JD Buttar.” 16 The “documents describe the
12
internal development of the accused products and details regarding Western Digital’s test suites.
13
The documents also refer to possible future Western Digital products that are currently in
14
development. Western Digital considers the information in these documents highly sensitive and
15
16
derives a business advantage from the information not being known by its competitors and the
17
general public.” 17 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the
18
highlighted redactions from Exhibit 19 and finds sealing the redacted transcript excerpts is
19
warranted. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
20
3.
21
22
Exhibit 20 to the Masuda Declaration
Exhibit 20 to the Masuda Declaration consists of “excerpts from the transcript of the
April 11, 2013 deposition of Maxine Gandall.” 18 The “deposition transcript contains confidential
23
24
14
Docket No. 467-1 at ¶ 2a.
15
Id.
16
Id. at ¶ 2b.
17
Id.
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
details on the Master Purchase Agreement between Guzik and Western Digital, including the
2
circumstances under which Western Digital signed the agreement.” 19 The court has reviewed
3
Western Digital’s representations alongside Exhibit 20 and finds sealing the deposition excerpts is
4
not warranted. Western Digital’s request is DENIED.
5
4.
6
Exhibit 15 to the Shaul Declaration
Exhibit 15 consists of an e-mail produced in this case that “includes quotations from the
7
8
9
Master Purchase Agreement which by its own terms is confidential, and for which the Court has
already allowed sealing.” 20 Although “Western Digital considers the information in this document
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
to be highly” sensitive, the court finds that the e-mail’s disclosure that a Western Digital agreement
11
requires thirty days-notice prior to termination does not warrant sealing. Western Digital’s request
12
is DENIED.
13
5.
Exhibit 24 to the Shaul Declaration
14
Exhibit 24 consists of a series of e-mails that “reveals confidential joint development plans
15
16
between Western Digital and Guzik.” 21 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations
17
alongside the e-mail chain and finds sealing the e-mail chain is not warranted. Western Digital’s
18
request is DENIED.
19
6.
20
Exhibit 2 consists of a presentation that “includes highly confidential information relating
21
Exhibit 2 to the Woodhouse Declaration
to Western Digital’s business operations, specifically internal financial analyses and product
22
23
24
18
Id. at ¶ 2c.
19
Id.
20
Id. at ¶ 3a.
21
Id. at ¶ 3b.
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
2
strategies.” 22 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the presentation
and finds sealing Exhibit 2 is warranted. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
3
7.
4
Exhibit 3 consists of a presentation produced in this case that contains “highly confidential
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Exhibit 3 the Woodhouse Declaration
information relating to Western Digital’s business operations, specifically internal financial
analyses and product” strategies and “contains proprietary technical and financial information” of
nonparties including Maxtor , SAE, and Hitachi. 23 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s
representations alongside the presentation and finds sealing the presentation to be warranted.
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
11
8.
12
Exhibit 6 consists of “excerpts of the April 19, 2013 deposition of JD Buttar.” 24 The
13
14
Exhibit 6 the Woodhouse Declaration
transcript “describes the internal development of the accused products and details” test suites and
also “refers to possible future Western Digital products that are currently in development.” 25 The
15
16
court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the highlighted redactions from the
17
deposition transcript and finds sealing the redacted transcript excerpts is warranted.
18
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
19
B.
Western Digital’s Opposition to Guzik’s Motion to Strike
20
1.
21
Exhibit M to the Woodhouse Declaration
Exhibit M consists of “an email from Tahir Ali to Herbert Lin cc JD Buttar, Kriangkrai
22
Sitthiosoth, Terry Farren, Anchalee Siwasttaporn, and Rob Eaton with subject “ROI and Cost
23
24
analysis for DBT with current KPI,’ dated April 13, 2011” produced in this case that contains “an
25
22
Id. at ¶ 4a.
26
23
Id. at ¶ 4b.
27
24
Id. at ¶ 4c.
28
25
Id.
6
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
internal chart that compares the test cost per head gimbal assembly against units” per hour and
2
“also reveals design and development details about a confidential alternative tester that Western
3
Digital developed.” 26 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the
4
email and finds sealing is warranted. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
5
2.
6
Exhibit N to the Woodhouse Declaration
Exhibit N “is an e-mail from Kriangkrai Sitthiosoth to Tahir Ali, Rob Eaton, Terry Farren
7
8
9
cc Anan Wonganu , Rittirong Bamrungtham, Jarupat Yamjerm, Kitti Tangtrakoon with subject
‘ROI calculation worksheet,’ dated April 12, 2011,” that contains “charts detailing internal cost
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
analyses and scenario modeling and discusses budgeting” concerns and “also reveals design and
11
development details about a confidential alternative tester that Western Digital developed.” 27 The
12
court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the email and finds sealing is
13
warranted. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
14
3.
Exhibit O to the Woodhouse Declaration
15
Exhibit O “is an e-mail exchange between Jinghuan Chen, Terry Farren, Rob Eaton and
16
17
other Western Digital employees with subject ‘WDB DBT Production Pareto 3-10-2011,’ dated
18
March 2011,” produced in this case that “reveals design and development details about an
19
alternative tester that Western Digital developed as well as information regarding its performance
20
and capabilities.” 28 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s representations alongside the e-mail
21
chain and finds sealing is warranted. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
22
4.
Exhibit P to the Woodhouse Declaration
23
Exhibit P consists of Mr. Pampinella’s expert rebuttal damages report. 29 The report “details
24
25
26
Docket No. 468-1 at ¶ 2a.
27
Id. at ¶ 2b.
28
Id. at ¶ 2c.
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
the economic considerations Western Digital undertakes” in making purchasing decisions, contains
2
information regarding costs and Western Digital testing statistics, and contains GTE’s “financial
3
information and profit margins.” 30 After reviewing Exhibit P, the court finds that some sealing is
4
warranted. Pages 9-13, 18, 27-29, 42, and 44-45 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s
5
6
request is GRANTED-IN-PART.
C.
Western Digital’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
7
1.
8
Exhibit D to the Woodhouse Declaration
Exhibit D contains excerpts from Dr. Phinney’s infringement expert report. 31 The exhibit
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
consists “of two infringement claim charts comparing the ’145 patent claim elements to
11
Western Digital’s DCT-400 and EH-300” testers including “information regarding the hardware
12
layout of Western Digital’s servo board, including the specific components” of the board and a
13
14
description of “Western Digital’s method of reading and writing servo bursts, including the servo
burst patterns.” 32 The court agrees that sealing Exhibit D is warranted. Western Digital’s request
15
16
is GRANTED.
17
2.
Dr. Phinney’s Declaration
18
Dr. Phinney’s declaration supporting GTE’s opposition to Western Digital’s motion
19
“contains information regarding Western Digital’s head testing procedures and certain testing
20
parameters that Western Digital uses during the testing” process, details on the “structural
21
relationship between certain specifically identified” components that might enable the reverse
22
23
24
29
See id.
30
Id. at ¶ 2d.
31
See Docket No. 469-1 at ¶ 2a.
32
Id. at ¶ 2a.
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
engineering of Western Digital’s testers. 33 The court has reviewed Western Digital’s
2
representations alongside Dr. Phinney’s declaration and believes some sealing is warranted.
3
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART. Western Digital seeks leave to file
4
Dr. Phinney’s declaration with redactions to paragraphs 2-37 under seal. Paragraphs 2-6 may not
5
be filed under seal. Paragraphs 7-37 may be filed under seal.
6
3.
Exhibit 8 to the Kolassa Declaration
7
Exhibit 8 consists of excerpts from the Infringement Report of Dr. Joshua Phinney
8
9
described above. 34 Exhibit 8 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
4.
11
Exhibit 12 consists of “GTE’s infringement contentions served on Western Digital” in this
12
13
14
Exhibit 12 to the Kolassa Declaration
case and includes “include photographs of dissembled Western Digital products which
Western Digital does not sell or display” publicly that “could be utilized to redesign
Western Digital’s testers.” 35 Exhibit 12 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is
15
16
GRANTED.
17
5.
Exhibit 14 to the Kolassa Declaration
18
Exhibit 14 is a document that “provides direction on how various parts of the EH-300
19
tester” are interconnected that was produced in this case. 36 Exhibit 14 may be filed under seal.
20
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
21
6.
Exhibit 16 to the Kolassa Declaration
22
“Exhibit 16 contains six pages of detailed schematics and is entitled ‘SPS7.’ The document
23
24
33
Id. at ¶ 3a.
34
See id. at ¶ 3b.
35
Id. at ¶ 3c.
36
Id. at ¶ 3d.
25
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
describes the hardware layout of the Western Digital servo board, including but not limited to the
2
actual hardware components and interconnections.” 37 Exhibit 16 may be filed under seal.
3
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
4
7.
5
Exhibits 17, 26-28, and 31-32 to the Kolassa Declaration “are schematics produced in this
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Exhibit 17, 26-28, and 31-32 to the Kolassa Declaration
case” that “describe the hardware layout of the Western Digital servo board and related auxiliary
boards, including but not limited to the actual hardware components and interconnections.” 38
These exhibits may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request to file these exhibits under seal
is GRANTED.
11
8.
12
Exhibits 18-20 and 39-40 to the Kolassa Declaration “are copies of source code produced in
13
14
Exhibit 18 and 39-40 to the Kolassa Declaration
this case” that are “used by Western Digital’s accused testers in performing its head testing
functions.” 39 These exhibits may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request to file these
15
16
exhibits under seal is GRANTED.
17
9.
Exhibit 21 to the Kolassa Declaration
18
Exhibit 21 consists of a presentation produced in this case that “details the preparation plan
19
for the DCT400, which Western Digital generally keeps confidential from its competitors.” 40
20
Exhibit 21 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
21
10.
Exhibit 24 to the Kolassa Declaration
22
Exhibit 24 consists of a document produced in this case that “details internal testing
23
24
specifications that are integral to Western Digital’s technology and business” operations and
25
37
Id. at ¶ 3e.
26
38
Id. at ¶ 3f.
27
39
Id. at ¶ 3g.
28
40
Id. at ¶ 3h.
10
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
1
discloses “insight into Western Digital’s intellectual property and engineering capabilities and
2
quality assurance process.” Exhibit 24 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is
3
GRANTED.
4
11.
5
Exhibit 1 contains excerpts from GTE’s infringement contentions including “photographs
6
7
8
9
Exhibit 1 to the Rogaski Declaration
of dissembled Western Digital products which Western Digital does not sell or display” publicly
that “could be utilized to redesign Western Digital’s testers.” 41 Exhibit 1 may be filed under seal.
Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
12.
11
Exhibit 2 consists of excerpts from Dr. Phinney’s infringement expert report. 42 The
12
excerpts from the report “contains information regarding the hardware layout of Western Digital’s
13
14
Exhibit 2 to the Rogaski Declaration
servo board, including the specific components” of the board and “additionally describes
Western Digital’s method of reading and writing servo bursts, including the servo burst patterns.” 43
15
16
Exhibit 2 may be filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
17
13.
Exhibit B to the Woodhouse Declaration
18
Exhibit B is the same as the document submitted as Exhibit D to the Woodhouse
19
Declaration above (see page 8). As above, the court finds sealing is warranted. Exhibit B may be
20
filed under seal. Western Digital’s request is GRANTED.
21
22
23
24
25
26
41
Id. at ¶ 4a.
27
42
See id. at ¶ 4b.
28
43
Id.
11
Case No.: 5:11-cv-03786-PSG
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
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?