Sentius International, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 211

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 176 ; granting-in-part 182 . (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2015)

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

SENTIUS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-00825-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS
TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 176 and 182)

16
Before the court are two administrative motions to seal. “Historically, courts have

17
18

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

19

records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

20

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

21
22

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. 3

23
24
25
26

1

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)).
2

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

3

Id. at 1178-79.

27
28

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-00825
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

1
2

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

3

their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

4

to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

5
6
7
8
9

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order

11

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good

12

cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to

13
14

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11

15
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

16
17

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

18

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

19

4

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

20

5

See id. at 1180.

21

6

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

22

7

Id.

23

8

24

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).

9

25

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

10

26

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

11

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. 5:13-cv-00825
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

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

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13

6

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:

7
8
9

Motion
to Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

176

Exhibit A

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

176

Exhibit F

Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 183
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

176

Exhibit I

Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 176-7
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

182

Sentius’ Omnibus Motion
in Limine

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

182

Exhibit D

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Reason/Explanation

21
22
23
24
25
26

12

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).
13

27
28

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time
available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As
this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5
for the purposes of this order.
3
Case No. 5:13-cv-00825
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

182

Exhibit F

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

182

1

Exhibit G

Designations at paragraphs 137139, 167-185, 199-200, 202, 226230, 254-262, 306, 312, 318-323,
351-359, 372-381, 395, 401, 406409, 435-441, 455-463, 477, 483,
488-491, 542, 607-610, 624-628,
656 and 662 SEALED; all other
text UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

182

Exhibit H

Designations at page 25 (the
paragraph beginning, “Microsoft
offers…”), pages 27-28 (the
paragraph beginning, “I reviewed
multiple surveys…”), page 30 (the
paragraph beginning, “Ultimately,
rather than…”), page 33 (the
paragraph beginning, “Ultimately,
Microsoft entered into…”), page
34 (the paragraph beginning,
“Microsoft and Arendi…”), page
36 (the paragraph beginning,
“Microsoft entered into…”), page
37 (the paragraph beginning,
“Under the terms of…”), footnote
253, page 38 (the paragraph
beginning, “In a Settlement…”),
pages 50-51 (the paragraph
beginning, “An agreement falling
outside…”) and footnotes 349-351
SEALED; all other text
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

182

Exhibit K

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

182

Exhibit L

Designations at Exhibit A1, pages
11-18, 20-29, 37-48, 57-64, 66-75,
83-93; and Exhibit A2, pages 1016, 20-30, 46-52, and 56-66
SEALED; other all text
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:13-cv-00825
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL