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

Filing 365

ORDE RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 352 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 v. UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL (Re: Docket No. 352) Before the court is an administrative motion to seal three documents. “Historically, courts 20 have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 21 judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records 23 24 25 26 27 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 28 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 1 Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL 1 2 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.3 3 However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain 4 mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 5 their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 6 to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 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 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific 11 prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm, 12 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order 13 14 sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to 15 16 17 designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.11 18 3 Id. at 1178-79. 4 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 5 See id. at 1180. 6 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 7 Id. 19 20 21 22 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). 25 9 26 10 27 11 28 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 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 RE: MOTION TO SEAL In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 1 2 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document 4 is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 5 6 the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 7 8 9 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”13 With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Motion Docket No. 352-6 Document to be Sealed Exhibit A to the Declaration of Constance F. Ramos Result UNSEALED. Docket No. 352-7 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Constance F. Ramos UNSEALED. Docket No. 352-8 Exhibit F to the Declaration of Constance F. Ramos Redacted portions indicated in Docket No. 352-5 SEALED. 13 14 15 16 Reason/Explanation Supporting declaration at Docket No. 364 does not request sealing. Supporting declaration at Docket No. 364 does not request sealing. Narrowly tailored to confidential business information. 17 18 19 SO ORDERED. Dated: January 26, 2015 20 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 12 25 26 27 28 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 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 3 Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG ORDER RE: 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?