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

Filing 849

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal, denying 768 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 777 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 784 ; granting-in-part and denying-in-part 791 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2015)

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

Plaintiff,

15
16

v.
UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

17

Defendants.

18

21
22

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS
TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 768, 777, 784, 791)

Before the court are four motions to file seven documents under seal.1 “Historically, courts

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

23
24

1

25

2

26
27

See Docket Nos. 768, 777, 784, 791.

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)).
3

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

28
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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.4

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.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

6
7

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving

8
9

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 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”8 that “specific

11

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of harm,

12

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A protective

13

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

14

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order that allows the

15
16
17
18
19
4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

6

See id. at 1180.

7

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

Id.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

9

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).
10

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

11

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

27
28

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

3
4

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

5

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

6
7

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

8
9

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14

12
13
14
15
16

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows:
Motion
Docket No.
768-4
Docket No.
777-4

Document to be Sealed
UMI’s Trial Brief

Result
UNSEALED.

Reason/Explanation
No declaration filed in support.

GSI’s Motion in Limine
No. 6 to Exclude
Evidence and Argument
of GSI’s 2007 and 2008
Investigation of UMI

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information and supported by a
declaration.

Docket No.
784-4

May 8, 2015 Expert
Report of Robert J.

Designations
highlighted in
yellow at
2:12-14,
4:13-15,
4:21-26 SEALED;
remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations
highlighted in

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

12

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.”).
13

24
25
26
27

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).
14

28

Sealed portions previously
sealed by court order as

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

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

Murphy

yellow SEALED.

Docket No.
784-6
Docket No.
791-2
Docket No.
791-5

Deposition of Robert J.
Murphy
UMI’s Omnibus Motion
in Limine
Ex. 1 to UMI’s Omnibus
Motion in Limine, July
24, 2015 deposition of
Paul Mphor Chiang

UNSEALED.

narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.15
No declaration filed in support.

UNSEALED

No declaration filed in support.
Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information and supported by a
declaration.

Docket No.
791-7

Ex. 2 to UMI’s Omnibus
Motion in Limine, July
17, 2015 deposition of
Robert J. Murphy

Designations
specified at
209:4-210:17;
227:23-228:9;
229:13-23;
233:23-234:25;
235:9-12;
236:19-237:2;
240:3-24;
241:25-242:6;
242:14-243:5;
244:8- 245:8;
249:12-250:14;
252:10-14;
252:19-253:12;
258:7-259:20;
260:7-14;
261:10-17;
263:1-18;
267:7-15;
268:11-25;
269:9- 270:13;
272:12-273:3;
283:23-284:17;
288:6-9;
293:9-15;
302:8-16;
335:17- 336:10;
340:3-342:13
343:16-345:15; and
346:20-347:5
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations
specified at
134:22-135:4;
135:9-24;
136:1-4;
136:12-137:11;
137:25-138:7;

1
2
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

15

See Docket No. 740 at 15.
4

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

Only sealed portions narrowly
tailored to confidential business
information and supported by a
declaration.

138:22-139:4;
139:16-140:13;
150:2-151:9;
151:22-152:9;
154:7-9;
155:11-14;
156:8-16;
156:24-157:24;
160:10-162:5;
165:8-167:2;
168:5-22;
177:11-179:20;
182:13-184:5;
184:10-21;
185:1-16;
258:16-260:25;
338:1-24;
360:23-363:7;
364:18-365:11; and
368:5-368:25
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: October 1, 2015

16

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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