Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corporation et al

Filing 86

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 82 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/21/2016. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2016)

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 82]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff Dominion Assets LLC (“Dominion”) moves to file under seal certain exhibits in
connection with its opposition to Defendants Masimo Corporation, et al.’s (collectively,
“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment. ECF 82. Defendants have filed a declaration in

16
support of sealing certain portions of these exhibits. ECF 84. For the reasons stated below, the
17
motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
18
19
20
21

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

22
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
23
24

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

25
1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
26
27
28

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this
district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5
6

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Dominion’s sealing motion and the supporting declarations filed

7

by both parties. Although Dominion originally moved to seal Exhibit AA in its entirety,

8

Defendants, who are the Designating Party under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), have filed a

9

declaration stating that only certain portions of Exhibit AA should be sealed and have attached a
highlighted version of Exhibit AA identifying those portions. ECF 82, 84, 85. Dominion also

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

moved to seal certain portions of Exhibit BB, which Defendants support. Id.

12

The Court finds that Defendants have articulated compelling reasons and good cause to

13

seal certain portions of the submitted documents in relation to Dominion’s opposition to

14

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The proposed redactions submitted by Defendants

15

with respect to Exhibit AA and the proposed redactions submitted by Dominion with respect to

16

Exhibit BB are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in

17

the table below:

18
19
20

Identification of
Documents to be
Sealed
Exhibit AA

21
22
23
24
25
26

Exhibit BB

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Highlighted portions on pages 44-45 contain
trade secret technical information regarding the
operation of the accused products, and appear in
an expert report which Defendants have
designated “Highly Confidential-Source Code.”
Highlighted portions in paragraph 23 contain
trade secret technical information from U.S.
Patent Application No. 11/367,017, a patent
application filed with a nonpublication request
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(B)(i).

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions on
pages 44-45 in ECF
85-1. DENIED as to
the remainder.
GRANTED as to
highlighted portions in
paragraph 23.

27
28
2

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 82 is GRANTED-IN-PART and

2
DENIED-IN-PART as set forth in the table above. The redacted version of Exhibit AA filed into
3
the public record by Defendants (ECF 85) is consistent with this order, so no further documents
4
need to be filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2).
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: November 21, 2016
9
10

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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