Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al v. Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 100

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL re: 99 Declaration of Eva Chan. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/12/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02737-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ELEC-TECH INTERNATIONAL CO.,
LTD., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING PLANITIFFS'
REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENT
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 84, 99]

Defendants.

12
13

On February 10, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part a request by Plaintiffs

14

to file certain documents under seal. See Sealing Order, ECF 98. In that Order, the Court denied

15

without prejudice a request to file exhibit 50 to the Declaration of Lawrence James under seal

16

because the declaration submitted in support of the sealing request, the Chan Declaration, failed to

17

“provide a particularized showing as to why this document should be sealed.” Sealing Order at 3.

18

Now, Ms. Chan offers the Court a second supplemental declaration, see ECF 99, which

19

provides this particularized showing. She states that exhibit 50 includes “a series of emails that

20

reflect[] ETI’s confidential recruitment efforts . . . , including details about specific areas of

21

technical expertise desired by ETI.” Chan Supp. Decl. ¶ 6. This information, Ms. Chan declares,

22

“if publicized, could result in substantial competitive harm to ETI,” id. at ¶ 7, which could be used

23

by ETI’s competitors to “undercut ETI’s efforts to develop a world-class LED business.” Id.

24

The Court in its prior sealing order granted Plaintiffs’ request to seal similar exhibits which

25

contained emails regarding recruitment efforts. See Sealing Order at 2. Here, the Court finds

26

similarly that Plaintiffs’ request to seal exhibit 50 meets the “compelling reasons” standard for

27

sealing as articulated in Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

28

1213 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court further finds that the sealing request is narrowly tailored in

1

conformance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’

2

request to seal exhibit 50 to the James Declaration in its entirety.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

7
8
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
2