Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 443

ORDER GRANTING 439 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/26/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FITEQ INC,

Case No. 13-cv-01946-BLF
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9
10

VENTURE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 439]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for administrative relief to file under seal several

13
14

exhibits to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. ECF 439. For the

15

reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

18

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

19

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

20

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

21

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

22

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

23

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

24

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

25

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

26

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

27

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

28

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

1

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

2

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

3

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

5

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

6

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

7

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

8

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

9

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

12

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.

13

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

14

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

15

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

16

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

17

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

18

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

19

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

26

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

27

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

28

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2

1

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

2

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

3

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

4

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

5

II.

DISCUSSION
The sealing motions at issue are resolved under the good cause standard because Plaintiff’s

6
7

motion to reopen discovery is only tangentially related to the merits of this case. With this

8

standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

9

ECF
No.
439-2

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

439-4

17
18
19
20
21

439-6

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

439-8

Document to
be Sealed
Exhibit 1 to
Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s
Motion to
Reopen
Discovery and
Exhibits 1-A,
1-B, and 1-C
thereto
Exhibit 4 to
Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s
Motion to
Reopen
Discovery
Exhibit 6 to
Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s
Motion to
Reopen
Discovery
Exhibit 7 to
Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s
Motion to
Reopen
Discovery

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as to the
designations highlighted
in green.

Contains a discussion of confidential
FiTeq documents and reveals
information pertaining to FiTeq
suppliers, card specifications, and card
readiness.

GRANTED.

Details confidential commercial
relationships between FiTeq and its
suppliers; specifies FiTeq card
components, reveals information on the
card’s manufacturing process flow, and
discusses control processes; and
discusses future FiTeq plans and their
timeframe.
Reveals information pertaining to card
readiness that, if revealed, could place
FiTeq at a competitive disadvantage and
could work serious economic injury to
FiTeq.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

Reveals information pertaining to card
readiness that, if revealed, could place
FiTeq at a competitive disadvantage and
could work serious economic injury to
FiTeq.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

439-10

Exhibit 8 to
Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s
Motion to
Reopen
Discovery

GRANTED.

Reveals information pertaining to card
readiness that, if revealed, could place
FiTeq at a competitive disadvantage and
could work serious economic injury to
FiTeq.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4