Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 293

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 229 ; denying 273 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2015)

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

FITEQ, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
VENTURE CORPORATION, LTD., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 229, 273)

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal a few documents. “Historically,

16
17

courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

18

including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a

19

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

20
21

records 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

22
23

disclosure. 3

24
25
26

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.

27
28

1
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

1
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
6
7
8
9

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11

15
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

16
17

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

18

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

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

Id.

23

8

24

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

25

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

10

26

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

11

27
28

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 Nos. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13

6

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

7
8
9

Motion
to Seal

Result

Reason/Explanation

229

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to
Preserve Confidentiality of
Portions of Deposition of
Eng Chuan Choo

UNSEALED

The court has already
denied a previous
motion to seal the
underlying
information. 14

229

Exhibit B to Declaration of
Spencer Hosie

UNSEALED

The court has already
denied a previous
motion to seal the
underlying
information. 15

273

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to
Reconsider the Court's
Order Denying Motion to
Seal Certain Documents

UNSEALED

The court has already
denied a previous
motion to seal the
underlying
information. 16

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Document to be Sealed

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

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).
13

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

14

See Docket Nos. 264, 290.

15

See id.

16

See id.

25
26
27
28

3
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL