Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al
Filing
70
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON ( 19 , 30 , 39 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2014)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
GOOGLE INC.,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER ON MOTIONS
TO SEAL
v.
(Docket Nos. 19,
30, 39)
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM U.S. LP,
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants.
9
10
No. C 13-5933 CW
________________________________/
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court are various motions to seal filed by
Plaintiff Google, Inc. and Defendants Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP
and MobileStar Technologies, LLC that are related to Defendants’
motion to dismiss.
The Court GRANTS the motions to seal, but only
in part.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under
seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be
sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Any
sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable
material.
Id.
The request must be supported by a declaration
establishing that the sealing is warranted.
Id. subsection (b).
There is a “strong presumption of access to judicial
records,” especially in the case of dispositive pleadings,
including motions to dismiss.
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).
This is because
dispositive motions are “at the heart of the interest in ensuring
1
the public's understanding of the judicial process and of
2
significant public events.”
3
documents attached to dispositive motions must demonstrate
4
“compelling reasons” outweighing the strong presumption in favor
5
of public disclosure.
6
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003).
7
Id.
Parties seeking to seal
Id. at 1180; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Defendants seek to redact certain portions of the Motion to
8
Dismiss and accompanying Dean Declaration.
9
Local Rule 79-5(e), Google filed a motion to seal portions of its
Pursuant to Civil
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Opposition corresponding to information Defendants sought to
11
redact.
12
similar to the declaration filed in support of their own motion.
13
Defendants also move to seal portions of their Reply containing
14
the same information.
15
Defendants filed a supporting declaration substantially
Some of these portions discuss the locations of Defendants’
16
licensing meetings with Google and various other companies; broad
17
descriptions of the substance of some of Defendants’ meetings; the
18
fact that Defendants inform parties of their infringement of
19
Defendants’ patents, negotiate patent licenses, and receive
20
licensing revenue; and Defendants’ operations and
21
employee/contractor relations.
22
two reasons that all of this information is sealable: (1) Rockstar
23
is bound by non-disclosure agreements with various non-parties to
24
keep this information confidential and (2) details of Rockstar’s
25
licensing negotiations, including the names of the entities
26
negotiating with Rockstar, constitute “sensitive, confidential and
27
proprietary business information” that will harm Rockstar and
28
these non-party entities.
Defendants’ declaration provides
In general, these are “broad
2
allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
2
articulated reasoning” that are not sufficient to establish even
3
good cause.
4
establish that most of this information is sealable.
5
information, such as the fact that Rockstar is a patent licensing
6
operation, is not secret.
7
negotiations that may be covered by nondisclosure agreements are
8
so vague that they are unlikely to violate those agreements.
9
Afzal Decl. ¶ 21 (stating that Rockstar has met with or sent
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
notice letters to certain “entities outside of Calfornia to
11
discuss licensing of the patents-in-suit”).
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.
Defendants have failed to
Some of the
The descriptions of licensing
See
12
In an abundance of caution, the Court will permit the parties
13
to redact (1) the disclosed identities of entities that negotiated
14
with Defendants but are not parties to this suit and
15
(2) statements that specifically disclose the contents of
16
settlement discussions.
17
rest of the parties’ motions is denied.
See, e.g., Dean Decl. ¶¶ 13, 19-20.
The
18
The parties must file in the public docket revised redacted
19
versions of these documents which comport with this order within
20
seven days.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: 5/23/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?