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

Filing 241

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 233 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 235 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 237 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014)

Download PDF
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 GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 UNITED MEMORIES, INC., and INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 233, 235, 237) The court has before three motions to seal the answers to Plaintiff GSI Technology Inc’s second amended complaint. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, 18 19 when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting 20 point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 21 overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access 22 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-01081-PSG ORDER DENYING 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-01081-PSG ORDER DENYING 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 7 8 Motion to Seal Result Reason 233 ISSI’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint UNSEALED No supporting declaration filed or redactions are not narrowly tailored to confidential business information 235 UMI’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint UNSEALED No supporting declarations filed 237 ¶ 74 of ISSI’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint UNSEALED Redactions are not narrowly tailored to confidential business information 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Document to be Sealed 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: June 16, 2014 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 20 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 “unreadacted 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-01081-PSG ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 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?