Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 485

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying (533) in case 5:13-cv-01777-PSG; denying (472), (474) in case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; denying (427) in case 5:13-cv-01844-PSG; denying (506) in case 5:13-cv-02023-PSG (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

ADAPTIX, INC.,

17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.,

20

Defendants.

21
22

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26
27

v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon
Wireless, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01777-PSG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01844-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 472, 474)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 533)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 427)

28
1
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; -01777; -01844; -02023
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

2
v.

3
4

APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

5
6
7
8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-02023-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 506)

Before the court are five administrative motions to seal two documents. “Historically,
courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial

11

records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

12

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

13

disclosure. 3

14
15
16

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

17
18

to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

19

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

20

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

21
22
23

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)).

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).

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; -01777; -01844; -02023
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7
8

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

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

15
16
17
18
7

19

Id.

8

20

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).

21

9

22

10

23

11

24
25
26
27
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.”).
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
“unredacted 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).
3
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG; -01777; -01844; -02023
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL