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

Filing 643

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 464 ; granting in part and denying in part 471 ; denying 476 ; granting in part and denying in part 479 ; granting in part and denying in part 484 ; granting in part and denying in part 486 ; granting in part and denying in part 487 ; granting in part and denying in part 490 ; denying 492 ; granting in part and denying in part 504 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

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
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS
TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 464, 471, 476, 479,
484, 486, 487, 490, 492, 504)

Before the court are 10 administrative motions to seal 33 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

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling

24

reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3

25

1

26
27
28

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.

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

1

1

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain

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

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving

6

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive motions, the

7

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific

8

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm,

9

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good

11

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to

12

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether

13

each particular document should remain sealed.11

14

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

15

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to

16

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document

17

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

18

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

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

23

8

24
25
26
27
28

Id.

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

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

11

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.”).
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

2

1

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

2

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

3

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”13
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Motion

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

Docket No.
464-3

Exhibit A to UMI’s
Opposition to GSI’s
Motion for Sanctions

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
471-4

ISSI’s Motion to Compel
on Requests for
Admission

Page 3 SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
471-6

Exhibit A to ISSI’s
Motion to Compel on
Requests for Admission

Exhibit A at 4:5-8; 4:1012 SEALED.14

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
471-8

Exhibit B to ISSI’s
Motion to Compel on
Requests for Admission

Exhibit B at 5:25-28;
6:2-7; 6:9-11; 6:13-18
SEALED.15

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
471-10

Exhibit C to ISSI’s
Motion to Compel on
Requests for Admission

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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).

The unredacted version of the document does not “indicate, by highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version” as
required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of
judicial economy. GSI’s declaration in support of ISSI’s motion to seal does not reference Exhibit
A, portions of which ISSI seeks to seal on GSI’s behalf. See Docket No. 493. Also in the interest
of judicial economy, the court grants this motion because GSI’s declaration supports sealing
portions of Exhibit B that are identical to the portions of Exhibit A which ISSI seeks to seal. See
id.
14

The unredacted version of the document does not “indicate, by highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version” as
required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of
judicial economy.
15

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

3

1
2

Docket No.
476-6

Exhibit B to ISSI’s
Motion to Strike “NonTrade Secret” Schematic
Claim

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information; and
unredacted version does
not “indicate, by
highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the
document that have been
omitted from the redacted
version” as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

Docket No.
479-3

ISSI’s Rule 37(b) Motion UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information; and
unredacted version does
not “indicate, by
highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the
document that have been
omitted from the redacted
version” as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

Docket No.
479-5

Exhibit C to ISSI’s Rule
37(b) Motion

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
479-7

Exhibit D to ISSI’s Rule
37(b) Motion

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
479-9

Exhibit E to ISSI’s Rule
37(b) Motion

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
479-11

Exhibit G to ISSI’s Rule
37(b) Motion

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information or unsealed
portions contain
information requested to
be sealed elsewhere;
unredacted version does
not “indicate, by
highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the
document that have been
omitted from the redacted
version” as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

4

1
2

Docket No.
484-2

Exhibit A to UMI’s
Motion to Compel GSI
to Supplement its
Privilege Log

UNSEALED.

Docket No.
487-2

UMI's Motion to Compel
GSI’s Production of
Agreements

Designations highlighted Sealed portions narrowly
in yellow SEALED.
tailored to confidential
business information
sealed.

Docket No.
487-3

Exhibit A to UMI's
Motion to Compel GSI’s
Production of
Agreements

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
490-3

Exhibit A to UMI’s
Motion to Compel GSI
to Supplement its
Responses to UMI’s
Interrogatories

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
490-5

Exhibit B to UMI’s
Motion to Compel GSI
to Supplement its
Responses to UMI’s
Interrogatories

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
490-7

Exhibit C to UMI’s
Motion to Compel GSI
to Supplement its
Responses to UMI’s
Interrogatories

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
490-9

Exhibit D to UMI’s
Motion to Compel GSI
to Supplement its
Responses to UMI’s
Interrogatories

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

5

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information and unsealed
portions contain
information requested to
be sealed elsewhere.

1
2

Docket No.
492-4

ISSI’s Opposition to
GSI's Motion to Compel
ISSI Written Discovery

UNSEALED.16

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information or unsealed
portions contain
information requested to
be sealed elsewhere;
unredacted version does
not “indicate, by
highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the
document that have been
omitted from the redacted
version” as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

Docket No.
504-4

Exhibit E to GSI’s
Motion to Compel
Production of a Privilege
Log

UNSEALED.17

ISSI does not request that
any portion be filed under
seal (see Docket No. 499).
UMI filed no declaration
in support.

Docket No.
504-6

Exhibit 1 to GSI’s
Motion to Compel UMI
to Produce a Witness for
Deposition Regarding
Supplemental
Interrogatory Responses

Designations highlighted Narrowly tailored to
in yellow SEALED.
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-8

Exhibit 2 to GSI’s
Motion to Compel UMI
to Produce a Witness for
Deposition Regarding
Supplemental
Interrogatory Responses

Designations highlighted Narrowly tailored to
in yellow SEALED.
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-10

GSI’s Motion to Compel
ISSI to Respond to
Written Discovery and
Requests for Production

Designations highlighted Narrowly tailored to
in blue SEALED.
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-12

Exhibit B to GSI’s
Motion to Compel ISSI
to Respond to Written
Discovery and Requests
for Production

Exhibit B at 5:27-6:3;
7:3-8:5 SEALED.18

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

16

25

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

17

26
27
28

GSI did not file a supporting declaration per Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

For all documents sought to be sealed at Docket No. 504, ISSI filed its declaration (Docket No.
499) in support of GSI’s original motion to seal (Docket No. 486) more than four days after GSI
served the motion, violating Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). However, the court considers ISSI’s declaration
because GSI later revised its motion to seal. See Docket No. 504.

The unredacted version of the document does not “indicate, by highlighting or other clear
method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version” as
6
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
18

1
2
3
4

Docket No.
504-14

GSI’s Letter Brief
Seeking Order to Compel
ISSI to Produce 30(b)(6)
Witness

Page 3: “Ex. F at
371:14-378:9” through
“See Ex. M at 293:1294:23” SEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-15

Exhibit B to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

UNSEALED.

ISSI does not request that
any portion be filed under
seal (see Docket No. 499).
UMI filed no declaration
in support.

Docket No.
504-17

Exhibit F to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-18

Exhibit G to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-19

Exhibit H to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-21

Exhibit I to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-23

Exhibit J to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-25

Exhibit M to GSI’s
Letter Brief Seeking
Order to Compel ISSI to
Produce 30(b)(6)
Witness

293:1-5; 293:17
UNSEALED.
Remaining designations
highlighted in yellow
SEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

Docket No.
504-27

Exhibit N to GSI’s Letter
Brief Seeking Order to
Compel ISSI to Produce
30(b)(6) Witness

Designations highlighted Sealed portions narrowly
in yellow SEALED.
tailored to confidential
business information
sealed.

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of
judicial economy. The portions of the document ordered sealed are the portions that ISSI seeks to
seal. It is unclear exactly what GSI seeks to seal. Both GSI’s motion (Docket No. 504) and John
Senechal’s declaration thereto (Docket No. 504-1) refer to redacted portions on page 12 of the
exhibit. Exhibit B contains highlighted designations at 5:7-8:7, but there are no redactions on page
12 or references to page 12 in GSI’s proposed order.
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

7

1
2
3
4

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

8