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

Filing 862

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 814 ; denying 835 ; denying 839 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2015)

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 21 22 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 814, 835, 839) Before the court are three motions to file six 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. 814, 835, 839. 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 With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows: Motion Docket No. 814-2 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Docket No. 835-4 Docket No. 835-7 Document to be Sealed Result Ex. B to ISSI’s Motion to UNSEALED. Preclude GSI From Presenting Evidence and Argument Contrary to the Court’s Summary Judgment Order UMI’s Omnibus UNSEALED. Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Ex. A to Ramos Decl. in UNSEALED. Support of UMI’s Omnibus Opposition 25 26 27 No declaration filed in support. 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.”). 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 No declaration filed in support. 12 13 24 Reason/Explanation No declaration filed in support. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 3 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 Docket No. 835-9 Docket No. 839-4 4 5 6 Docket No. 839-5 Ex. B to Ramos Decl. in Support of UMI’s Omnibus Opposition GSI’s Opposition to ISSI’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert J. Murphy Ex. C to Dharnidharka Decl. in Support of GSI’s Opposition 7 No declaration filed in support. UNSEALED. Designating party states that document does not contain any information that it seeks to seal. UNSEALED. Designating party states that document does not contain any information that it seeks to seal. SO ORDERED. 8 UNSEALED. Dated: October 7, 2015 9 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 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 4 Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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?