GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories, Inc.

Filing 1078

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 1064 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California 12 14 15 16 17 20 (Re: Docket No. 1064) Before the court is an administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records 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.4 18 19 ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL Defendants. 11 13 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 21 22 1 23 2 24 See Docket No. 1064. 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 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 25 26 27 28 1 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL 1 to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 2 “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties 3 moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive 4 motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8 5 that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of 6 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A 7 protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 8 determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order 9 that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial 10 scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12 In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to 13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document 14 is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 15 under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, 16 and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 17 18 6 See id. at 1180. 19 7 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 20 8 Id. 21 9 22 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). 23 10 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 11 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 25 12 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.”). 13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 2 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL 1 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 2 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14 With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows: Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation 1064-4, GSI’s Motion for Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Fees & Costs yellow at narrowly tailored to 7:16-18, 20, 27 confidential business SEALED; all other designations information. UNSEALED. 1064-6, Dharnidharka Decl. All designations highlighted in Only sealed portions ISO GSI’s Motion for Fees & yellow except designation at narrowly tailored to Costs 10:2 confidential business are SEALED; 10:2 is information. UNSEALED. 1064-8, Ex. A to SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Dharnidharka Decl. ISO confidential business GSI’s Motion for Fees & information. Costs 1064-9, Ex. A to SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Dharnidharka Decl. ISO confidential business GSI’s Motion for Fees & information. Costs 1064-10, Ex. A to SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Dharnidharka Decl. ISO confidential business GSI’s Motion for Fees & information. Costs 1064-11, Ex. A to SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Dharnidharka Decl. ISO confidential business GSI’s Motion for Fees & information. Costs 3 4 5 6 7 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 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). 14 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 3 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL 1 SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 29, 2015 3 4 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 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 4 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION 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?