Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation

Filing 211

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 191 ; granting-in-part 193 ; denying 195 ; denying 200 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SILICON LABORATORIES, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

Plaintiff,

8

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

(Re: Docket Nos. 191, 193, 195, 200)

CRESTA TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Before the court are four administrative motions to seal.1 “Historically, courts have

13
14

recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

15

records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

16

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

17

relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear

18

the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general

19

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

20
21
22

1

23

2

24

See Docket Nos. 191, 193, 195, 200.

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
3

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

4

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

2

their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially

3

related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7

4

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”

5

standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9 that “specific

6

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm,

7

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective

8

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that

9

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the
parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

12
13

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to

14

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document

15
16
17
18
19

6

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

7

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has
less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those
documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).
8

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

9

Id.

20
21
22
23

10

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
11

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

24
25
13

26
27
28

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party
to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

2

under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,

3

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”15
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:

6
7

Motion
to Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

8
9

191

Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Testimony of
Douglas Holberg

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

191

Exhibit B to Sobieski
Declaration (Asset
Purchase Agreement)

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

191

Exhibit C to Sobieski
Declaration (Excerpts from
Tuttle Deposition)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

191

Exhibit D to Sobieski
Declaration (Excerpts from
Holberg Deposition)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

191

Exhibit E to Sobieski
Declaration (Holberg
Expert Report)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

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

14

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
15

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

193

Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Testimony of Paul
Benoit

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

193

Exhibit B to Sobieski
Declaration (Asset
Purchase Agreement)

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

193

Exhibit C to Sobieski
Declaration (Excerpts from
Tuttle Deposition)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193

Exhibit D to Sobieski
Declaration (Excerpts from
Holberg Deposition)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193

1

Exhibit E to Sobieski
Declaration (Email Chain
and XC5000 Evaluation
Attachment)

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

193

Exhibit F to Sobieski
Declaration (Internal
CrestaTech Email and
Attachment)

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

193

Exhibit G to Sobieski
Declaration (Benoit Expert
Report)

Designations highlighted in
black at Docket No. 197-3
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

193

Exhibit I to Sobieski
Declaration (Excerpts from
Benoit Deposition)

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193

Exhibit J to Sobieski
Declaration (Email and
Revised Exhibits to Benoit
Report)

Designations highlighted in
black at Docket No. 197-4
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

2
3
4
5
6
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

4
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

193

Exhibit K to Sobieski
Declaration (Email and
409A Report)

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

193

Exhibit L to Sobieski
Declaration (Allocation
Summary)

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

195

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony

UNSEALED

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

195

Exhibit D to Collier
Declaration (Excerpts from
Lewis Deposition)

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

195

Exhibit F to Collier
Declaration (Excerpts from
Murgulescu Deposition)

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

200

Defendant’s Letter to the
Court Requesting
Settlement Conference

UNSEALED

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL