VIA Technologies, Inc. (a California corporation) et al v. ASUS Computer International et al

Filing 159

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part 151 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12
13

15
16
17
18
19

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 151)

10

14

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized
a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor
of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that
are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear the burden of
overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

20
21
22

1

23

2

24

See Docket No. 151.

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-03586-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that
good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

12

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

13
14

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

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-03586-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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 motion as follows:

7
8

Motion
to Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

Designations highlighted in
yellow on pages 6:23-11:1 at
Docket No. 151-4 SEALED; all
other designations UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

9
10

151

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

VIA Technologies, Inc.’s
Responses to Defendant
ASMedia Technology
Inc.’s First Set of
Interrogatories (No. 1)

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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-03586-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL