Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA et al

Filing 131

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 80 ; granting 94 ; granting-in-part 109 ; granting-in-part 114 ; granting-in-part 118 ; denying 120 ; denying 123 ; granting-in-part 125 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2015)

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
12
13
14
15
16

SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. )
OF PITTSBURGH, PA., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-05658-LHK
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS
TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 80, 94, 109, 114, 118,
120, 123, 125)

Before the court are eight administrative motions to seal several documents. “Historically,

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22

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

23
24
25
26

disclosure. 3
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 No. 5:13-cv-05658-LHK
OMNIBUS 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 No. 5:13-cv-05658-LHK
OMNIBUS 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

Document to be Sealed

Result

80

Exhibit B

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit C

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit D

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit E

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit G

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit I

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit K

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Reason/Explanation

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

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

28

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

Case No. 5:13-cv-05658-LHK
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

business information.

1
2

80

Exhibit L

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

80

Exhibit M

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

80

Exhibit N

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

94

Exhibit A

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

94

Exhibit B

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

94

Exhibit C

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

109

Motion to Compel

Only designations highlighted in
yellow at 7:4-8 at Docket No.
109-5 SEALED; all other
designations UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

109

Declaration in Support of
Motion to Compel

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

109

Exhibit O

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

109

Exhibit P

Only designations highlighted in
yellow at 14:13-16:11; 47:948:20; 53:22-55:4; 59:14-60:19;
61:18-62:17; 96:10-97:15 at
Docket No. 109-6 Exh. P
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

114

Motion to Compel

Only designations highlighted in
yellow at 2:17-18; 5:12-16; 6:13; 7:17-21; 9:3-9; 9:13-14;
10:17-22; 11:10-12 at Docket
No. 114-5 SEALED; all other
4

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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

Case No. 5:13-cv-05658-LHK
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL