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)

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