Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corporation et al
Filing
118
ORDER REGARDING 110 , 113 DAUBERT SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/30/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
DOMINION ASSETS LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
MASIMO CORPORATION, et al.,
[Re: ECF 110, 113]
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER REGARDING DAUBERT
SEALING MOTIONS
v.
9
10
Case No. 14-cv-03002-BLF
12
Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their
13
14
exhibits in connection with Defendants’ Daubert motion. ECF 110, 113. For the reasons stated
15
below, the motions are GRANTED.
16
17
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
18
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of
19
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
20
U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
21
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
22
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
23
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
24
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
25
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
26
1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
27
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
28
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
1
their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.
2
Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the
3
merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto
4
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need
5
for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are
6
often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving
7
to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
8
Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
9
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by
12
specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,
13
966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery
14
may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents
15
sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties
16
to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine
17
whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference
18
to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as
19
confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).
20
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
21
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
22
79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
23
“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
24
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
25
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the
26
submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
27
material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
28
sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2
1
highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the
2
redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
3
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
4
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
5
6
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants’ Daubert Motion seeks to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s damages expert
7
Elvir Causevic. ECF 111. Because exclusion of Elvir Causevic’s testimony could cause a
8
significant blow to Plaintiff’s ability to prove its case, Defendants’ Daubert Motion is dispositive.
9
Thus, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. Open Text S.A. v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Box, Inc., No. 13-CV-04910-JD, 2014 WL 7368594, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2014).
For both parties’ sealing motion, Defendants designated the information sought to be
12
sealed as confidential. After reviewing Defendants’ declarations, the Court finds that Defendants
13
have articulated compelling reasons to seal portions of the submitted documents and that the
14
proposed redactions are narrowly tailored.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
A.
ECF 110
ECF No.
Document to be
Sealed:
110-4
Exhibit J:
Excerpts from Elvir
Causevic’s Expert
Report on
Infringement and
Economic Damage
dated June 17, 2016.
110-6
Exhibit N:
Annual Sales of the
Rainbow Products
shipped to the United
States (attached as
Exhibit D.4 to Elvir
Causevic’s Expert
Report on Economic
Damages dated June
17, 2016).
Result
Reasoning
GRANTED as to
the highlighted
portions.
The proposed redactions include
confidential information regarding
Defendants’ financial sales data, disclosure
of which would cause irreparable and
competitive harm to Defendants. Lateef
Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5, ECF 110-1.
GRANTED in its
entirety.
The entire exhibit contains confidential
information regarding the annual sales of
Defendants’ Rainbow products, disclosure
of which would cause irreparable and
competitive harm to Defendants. Lateef
Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
B.
ECF 113
ECF No.
Document to be
Result
Sealed:
GRANTED in its
113-3
Exhibit F to
Declaration of Bruce entirety.
J. Wecker in
Opposition to
Defendants’ Daubert
Motion
Reasoning
The entire exhibit contains confidential
annual component line item sales figures
for Defendants’ accused products over a
five year period. Claassen Decl. ¶¶ 5– 6,
ECF 116. Disclosure of such information
which would cause irreparable and
competitive harm to Defendants. Id. ¶ 8.
6
7
8
III.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 110 and 113 are GRANTED.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Dated: May 30, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?