Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corporation et al

Filing 77

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 72 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/26/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

DOMINION ASSETS LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-03002-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

MASIMO CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE MOTION TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF 72]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Defendants move to file under seal certain exhibits in connection with their motion for

13
14

summary judgment. ECF 72. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART

15

AND DENIED IN PART.

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 and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

21

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

22

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

23

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

24

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

25

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

26

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

27

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

28

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

1
2

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

3

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ sealing motion and their declaration in support

4

thereof. The Court finds that Defendants have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain

5

portions of the submitted documents. While the proposed sealing of Exhibit M is narrowly

6

tailored, that of Exhibit H is not. The Court’s ruling on the sealing request is set forth in the table

7

below:

8

Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Exhibit H to the Declaration of
Brian C. Claassen in
Support of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement and
Invalidity (“Claassen Decl.”);
excerpts from Causevic’s
expert report
Exhibit M to the Claassen
Decl.; claim chart

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Exhibit S to the Claassen
Decl.; excerpts from J.W.
Brasch’s inventor’s notebook
Exhibit T to the Claassen
Decl.; excerpts from J.W.
Brasch’s inventor’s notebook

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Certain portions of the exhibit
contain technical trade secrets
relating to Defendants’
products. However, the
proposal to seal the entirety of
the exhibit would not be
narrowly tailored.

DENIED.

This exhibit contains technical
trade secrets relating to
Defendants’ products.
Plaintiff has not provided a
declaration in support of
sealing this exhibit.
Plaintiff has not provided a
declaration in support of
sealing this exhibit.

GRANTED.

DENIED.

DENIED.

20
21

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

22
PART. For any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as
23
confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, or has not
24
narrowly tailored its request, the submitting party must file the unredacted documents into the
25
public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
26
Alternatively, the parties may renew their motions to seal the documents the Court has identified
27
as not narrowly tailored or for which the designating party has not filed a declaration in support.
28
2

1

Any renewed motions must comport with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) and (e) and be filed by October 31,

2

2016.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

Dated: October 26, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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
3