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

Filing 177

ORDER GRANTING 175 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 HEARING TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2015)

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.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 HEARING
TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 175]

12
13

Before the Court is an administrative motion by Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd and Elec-

14

Tech International (H.K.) Co., Ltd. (“Moving Defendants”) to redact portions of the transcript

15

from the September 10, 2015 hearing on Moving Defendants’ Motion for Civil Contempt and/or

16

Sanctions (“Transcript”). ECF 175. The administrative motion is unopposed.

17

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

18

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

19

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). When a party requests to seal judicial records attached to a non-

20

dispositive motion, such as the motion for civil contempt and/or sanctions at issue here, it must

21

show “good cause.” Id. at 1180.

22

At the September 10, 2015 hearing, Moving Defendants noted their intention to request the

23

redaction of certain portions of the Transcript. See Redacted Transcript, ECF 175-3 at 32-33. On

24

October 19, 2015, the Court issued an Order on Publication of Unredacted Hearing Transcript

25

stating that the Transcript would be published without redaction unless the parties submitted their

26

requests. ECF 174. Moving Defendants responded with this motion.

27
28

Moving Defendants have established that the requested portions of the Transcript reflect
information from exhibits previously ordered to be filed under seal. See Def.’s Mot at 1. Thus,

1
2

Moving Defendants have satisfied the “good cause” standard.
Because this material is sealable, the request also complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).

3

The Court has reviewed the redactions and finds them to be narrowly tailored, as required by Civil

4

Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). As such, Moving Defendants’ motion to file the following portions of

5

the Transcript under seal is GRANTED: (page:line): 52:13-17; 52:19; 52:21; 52:24-53:3; 55:4-6;

6

55:8; 55:15; 55:25-56:1; 57:7-9; 57:16-18; 57:20-21; 58:22-24; 61:6-7; 61:11-25; 63:10-11;

7

69:20;73:6; 73:13; 74:5; 74:7; 74:9; 74:21; 75:2; 75:4:75:6; 76:5-6; 76:16; 76:19-20; 76:21-22;

8

77-22-24; 79:12-14; 79:20-23; 80:7-9; 80:15; 81:2; 81:11; 81:12-13; 81:17:81:19; 81:22-23;

9

81:25-82:3; 82:9; 84:2; 84:6-7.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: October 28, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2