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

Filing 411

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 375 ; denying 381 ; denying 384 ; denying 389 ; granting in part and denying in part 391 ; denying 403 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2015)

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
15
16

v.

Plaintiff,

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 375, 381, 384, 389, 391,
403)

Before the court are six administrative motions to seal sixteen documents. “Historically,

20

courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

21

including judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a

22
23
24

‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial
records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

25
26
27
28

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)).

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

1

1
2

“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
7
8
9

to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
“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
15
16
17

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
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed.11

18
19
20
21
22
23

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.

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
7
8
9

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
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

Motion

12

Docket No.
375-4
Docket No.
375-6

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Docket No.
375-7
Docket No.
381-4
Docket No.
384-4
Docket No.
384-6
Docket No.
389-4
Docket No.
389-5
Docket No.
389-6

Document to be
Sealed
ISSI’s Motion to
Enforce.
Exhibit B to
ISSI’s Motion to
Enforce.
Exhibit C to
ISSI’s Motion to
Enforce.
Exhibit F to
ISSI’s Opposition.
GSI’s Opposition.
Exhibit A to
GSI’s Opposition.
GSI’s Letter Brief
to Compel UMI.
Exhibit N to
GSI’s Letter Brief
to Compel UMI.
Exhibit O to
GSI’s Letter Brief

Result
SEALED.
3:5-7:28 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
3:26-4:8, 5:15-23:14,
25:3-9 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.

Reason/Explanation
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.
No supporting declaration filed.
Designating party does not
request sealing at Docket No. 393.
Designating party does not
request sealing at Docket No. 393.
Designating party does not
request sealing at Docket No. 397.
Designating party does not
request sealing at Docket No. 397.
Designating party does not
request sealing at Docket No. 397.

24
25
26
27
28

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

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

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

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Docket No.
391-8
Docket No.
391-9
Docket No.
391-10
Docket No.
391-11
Docket No.
391-12

11
12

Docket No.
391-13

13
14
15
16

Docket No.
403-3

to Compel UMI.
Exhibit H to
GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit I to GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit J to GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit K to
GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit L (part 1)
to GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit L (part 2)
to GSI’s
Supplemental
Responses.
Exhibit H to the
Declaration of
Constance F.
Ramos.

3:9-10:21 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.

3:7-7:28 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.

3:7-7:28 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
3:7-4:21 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
2, 6, 34-45, 47-49, 51-74
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.

2, 4, 15-50 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information.

UNSEALED.

Request is not narrowly tailored
to confidential business
information.

17
18
19

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

4