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

Filing 250

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 217 Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 03/17/2016. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY,
INC.,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15
16

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.,

17

Case No. 13-CV-05658-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 217

Defendants.

18
Before the Court is a joint administrative motion to file under seal brought by Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and Defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA and XL Specialty Insurance Company. ECF No. 217. The parties seek to seal
portions of exhibits filed in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.1
The Court previously denied the parties’ administrative motions to seal because these motions
were overbroad and failed to satisfy the compelling reasons standard. ECF No. 179. The Court
1

On November 29, 2015, the parties stipulated to dismiss the instant action with prejudice. ECF
No. 248. The Court granted this stipulation on November 30, 2015. ECF No. 249. However,
because the Court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment prior to this
stipulation of dismissal, the parties have requested a ruling on their joint administrative motion to
file under seal.
1
Case No. 13-CV-05658-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

instructed the parties that “[a]ny subsequent Administrative Motions to File Under Seal must be

2

narrowly tailored and justified by compelling reasons.” Id. at 2.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in

7

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

8
9

Parties seeking to seal judicial records related to dispositive motions bear the burden of
overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist

12

“when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

13

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

14

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the

15

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

16

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions

17

include “motions for summary judgment.” Id.

18

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court has broad discretion to permit

19

sealing of documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

20

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit defines

21

trade secrets as follows: “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or

22

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to

23

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d

24

1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the production of goods . . . . It

25

may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business . . . .” Id. In

26

addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial

27

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

28

2
Case No. 13-CV-05658-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
Furthermore, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures

2
3

established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only

4

upon a request that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade

5

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be

6

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

7

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed

8

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format

9

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of
the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to

12
13

the parties’ request to seal documents filed in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for

14

summary judgment. The Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

15
16
17
18

Motion Standard
Document
to Seal
146-8
Compelling Xicor’s Third Amended
Reasons
Identification, Ex. 3
146-13

19

Ruling
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Compelling Levi Deposition, Ex. 16
Reasons

DENIED with respect to 82:9–82:25; 84:13–
84:24; 89:2–89:9; and 92:4–92:10.

20
21

146-17

Compelling Nataupsky Expert Report,
Reasons
Ex. 39

146-18

Compelling Nataupsky Rebuttal
Reasons
Report, Ex. 40

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

146-18

Compelling Min Rebuttal Report, Ex.
Reasons
42

DENIED with respect to ¶¶ 39–40.

22
23

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

24
25

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions.

26
27
28

3
Case No. 13-CV-05658-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1
2
3
4

Motion Standard
Document
to Seal
146-19 Compelling Souri Expert Report, Ex.
Reasons
43

146-20

Compelling Pooley Rebuttal Report,
Reasons
Ex. 46

DENIED.

146-5

Compelling Fair Declaration, Ex. 52
Reasons

DENIED with respect to ¶¶ 1–14.
Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions
GRANTED as to ¶¶ 7–12; 14–17; 19–22; 24–
28; 30–34; 36–39; 41–44; 46–50; 53–54.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

146-5

Compelling Foty Declaration, Ex. 53
Reasons

Otherwise DENIED as to the proposed
redactions.

12
13
14
15
16

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Compelling Souri Rebuttal Report, Ex.
Reasons
44

7
8

DENIED with respect to ¶¶ 65, 75, and 80.

146-19

5
6

Ruling

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 17, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 13-CV-05658-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL