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

Filing 137

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 95 133 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 11, 2013. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2013)

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

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware
Corporation

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., a Colorado
Corporation,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 13-1081 PSG
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 95)

Plaintiff GSI Technology, Inc.’s (“GSI”) moved to seal exhibits BJ, BK, BH, BI, and BL
attached to its preliminary injunction reply brief, which contained information designated as

19
confidential by Defendant United Memories, Inc. (“UMI”), third party Integrated Silicon Solutions,
20
21

Inc. (“ISSI”), and third party Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”).1 The court granted the motion as to

22

Exhibits BI and BL, but denied sealing all other exhibits, noting that the designating parties failed

23

to file an appropriate and timely responsive declaration supporting the motion.2 However, it has

24

come to the court’s attention that the court was mistaken, in that Cisco and UMI did file

25
26
1

See Docket No. 95.

2

See Docket No. 133.

27
28

1

Case No.: 13-1081 PSG
ORDER

1

declarations addressing these other exhibits.3 The court apologies for its oversight and now

2

evaluates whether Cisco and UMI have proven that sealing Exhibits BH, BJ, and BK is warranted.

3

Under Local Rule 79-5, a sealing order is appropriate only upon request that establishes the

4

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

5

protection under the law.”4 When the submitting party has filed an administrative motion to

6
7
8
9

comply with a stipulated protective order, the designating party must within 7 days file a
supporting declaration establishing the document is “sealable” and a narrowly-tailored proposed
order.5 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access

11

and the public policies favoring disclosure.6 Compelling reasons exist when documents contain

12

potential trade secrets or business information that if released might harm the owner’s competitive

13

standing.7

14
Exhibits BJ and BK are deposition transcripts describing the role of UMI’s president in the
15
16

company and its relationship with ProMos. UMI asserts this is “extremely sensitive” business

17

information.8 It is extremely doubtful, however, that this information is at all confidential; in fact,

18

the same information describing UMI’s relationship with ProMos is described in the unredacted

19
20
21
22

3

See Docket No. 116, 118.

23

4

Civ. L.R. 79-5(a).

24

5

Id. 79-5(d).

25

6

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

7

27

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3283478
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012).
8

28

Docket No. 116.
2

Case No.: 13-1081 PSG
ORDER

1
2

complaint in this case.9 In any event, no compelling reasons exist for sealing these transcript
excerpts. The requests to seal Exhibits BJ and BK are DENIED.
Exhibit BH is a deposition transcript describing Cisco’s relationship with Renesas, UMI,

3
4

GSI, and ISSI, as well as the fact that these parties convened at certain meetings. Cisco claims that

5

this is “confidential and proprietary information relating to Cisco’s business,” the disclosure of

6

which would harm Cisco.10 These allegations are again simply not credible because almost all of

7
8
9

this information has already been disclosed in the complaint and the papers filed publicly in this
case. More importantly, Cisco has not shown how disclosure of the mere fact that Cisco convened

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

with these parties at meetings would harm Cisco competitively, let alone meet the “compelling

11

reasons” standard. The request to seal exhibit BH also must be DENIED.

12
13
14

GSI shall file unredacted versions of these documents no later than July 19, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2013

15
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

9
See
10

Docket No. 1.
Docket No. 118.
3

Case No.: 13-1081 PSG
ORDER