Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 38 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-00362-BLF

v.
TELA INNOVATIONS, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF ITS
AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER
SEAL

Defendant.

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 18, 2014 Motion to file under seal portions of its

14

Amended Complaint (ECF 38), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Plaintiff submits a

15

declaration in support of the requested sealing. (Chanin Decl., ECF 38-1) Because Plaintiff’s

16

declaration offers compelling reasons to seal portions of its Amended Complaint, the Court

17

GRANTS the Motion.

18

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

19

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

20

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling

21

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which

22

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd

23

v.Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). This standard requires the party meet a

24

lower burden, recognizing a lesser “cognizable public interest in . . . documents produced between

25

private litigants.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

An Amended Complaint is neither a discovery document nor a dispositive motion, but the

27

Court believes its status more closely resembles that of a dispositive motion. Thus, a party seeking

28

to seal portions of an Amended Complaint must show a compelling interest that outweighs the

1
2

public’s general right to inspect such documents.
In this case, the declaration filed with Plaintiff’s Motion meets the compelling interest

3

standard. Plaintiff cites factual reasons why disclosure of certain aspects of TSMC’s proprietary

4

and confidential information could cause it economic and competitive harm, including enabling its

5

competitors to avoid or reduce their own research and development costs, or allowing such

6

competitors to simply adopt TSMC’s technology disclosed in the Amended Complaint. (Chanin

7

Decl. ¶ 10) The Court finds these facts sufficient to meet the “compelling interest” standard

8

necessary to outweigh the public’s right of access. See Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206, 1213.

9

Plaintiff has filed with the Court a public, redacted version of the proposed Amended
Complaint (ECF 38-3), consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C), and seeks only to seal the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

portions of the Amended Complaint related to the confidential and proprietary information. As

12

such, their request is appropriately narrowly tailored.

13

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, and permits

14

Plaintiff to file under seal the portions of its Complaint so designated in its Motion. (Mot. at 2

15

(stating the specific portions of paragraphs TSMC seeks to have sealed))

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2