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

Filing 945

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 928 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2015)

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

Plaintiff,

15
16

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

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 928)

Before the court is one motion to file two documents under seal.1 “Historically, courts 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
25
26

1
2

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

27

See Docket No. 928.

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
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

7

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

8

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive motions, the

9

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8 that “specific

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

15

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12

16
17

5

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

6

See id. at 1180.
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

19

Id. at 1178-79.

7

18

4

Id.

20
21
22
9

23
24
25
26
27
28

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.

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.”).
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

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

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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. 928-4

Document to be Sealed
GSI’s Motion to Strike
Supplemental Cox Expert
Report

Result
Designation highlighted at
2:4-5
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

Docket
No. 928-5

Ex. A to Dharnidharka
Decl. In Support Of GSI’s
Motion to Strike
(Supplemental Cox Expert
Report)

Designations requested at
¶ 3 from the words “Page 4,
Paragraph 9” to the words “I
hereby declare” on page 2; and
Updated Exhibit 7
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

SO ORDERED.

20

Reason/Explanation
Only sealed portion
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information and
supported by a
declaration.
Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information and
supported by a
declaration.

Dated: October 23, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
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

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

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