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

Filing 1109

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 1102 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

15
16
17
18

(Re: Docket Nos. 1102)

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

11

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

9

13

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

Before the court is one 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 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear
the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

19

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

20
21
22

1

See Docket No. 1102.

2

23

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)).

24

3

25

4

26
27
28

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

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., Case No. 15-55084, 2016 WL 142440, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan.
11, 2016).
5

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
1

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially

3

related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7

4

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”

5

standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9 that “specific

6

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm,

7

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective

8

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

9

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the
parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

12
13

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

14

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

15
16
17
18
19

6

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

7

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *4; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he
public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions
because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause
of action.”).
8

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

9

Id.

20
21
22
23

10

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).
11

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

12

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

24
25
13

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.”).
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “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.”15
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows:

6
7

Docket
No.

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

8
9

1102-4

Plaintiff’s Reply ISO
Motion for Fees and Costs

Designation highlighted in
yellow at 10:1 SEALED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SO ORDERED.

12

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Dated: February 3, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

14

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).
15

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL