VIA Technologies, Inc. (a California corporation) et al v. ASUS Computer International et al
Filing
208
Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 189 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017)
E-filed 1/30/2017
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 189
Defendants.
12
13
Case No.14-cv-03586-BLF (HRL)
Plaintiffs Via Technologies, Inc. (California), Via Technologies, Inc. (Taiwan), and Via
14
Labs, Inc. (together, “VIA”), have filed an administrative motion to file under seal certain exhibits
15
attached to VIA’s motion to amend its infringement contentions. Dkt. Nos. 189, 190. Defendants
16
ASMedia Technology, Inc. (“ASMedia”), ASUS Computer International, and ASUSTeK
17
Computer, Inc. (together, “Defendants”), filed a declaration in support of VIA’s sealing motion.
18
Dkt. No. 193. For the reasons explained below, the court grants the administrative motion to file
19
under seal.
20
The courts recognize a common-law right of access to public records, and a strong
21
presumption in favor of public access exists. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
22
1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). This right of access, however, is not absolute, and can be
23
overridden. Id. at 1135. The party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming
24
the presumption in favor of access. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
25
1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
26
The court applies one of two standards in evaluating motions to seal: the lower good cause
27
standard, which applies to non-dispositive matters, and the more stringent compelling reasons
28
standard, which applies to dispositive matters. See Luo v. Zynga, Inc., No. 13-cv-00186 NC, 2013
1
WL 5814763, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2013). A motion to amend infringement contentions is
2
a non-dispositive motion, and so the good cause standard applies here. See Finjan Inc. v.
3
Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 9023164, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015). Under the
4
good cause standard, the party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or
5
harm will result” if the document is not filed under seal. Id. at *1 (quoting San Jose Mercury
6
News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)).
7
The court has reviewed VIA’s sealing motion and the supporting declarations and finds
8
that good cause exists to seal Exhibit 4, Exhibit A to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit A to Exhibit 3. These
9
exhibits, containing copies of some of VIA’s infringement contention charts, include information
concerning the “internal operation and structures” of ASMedia’s products (specifically, they
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
contain analog schematic designs and the results of a reverse engineering). Dkt. No. 193, at ¶¶ 2-
12
7. ASMedia has shown that the disclosure of this information could cause it irreparable
13
competitive harm by giving its competitors insight and understanding into ASMedia’s products
14
and allowing them to incorporate aspects of ASMedia’s designs into their own competing
15
products. Id. Additionally, the court finds that Civil Local Rule 79-5(b)’s narrow tailoring
16
requirement is satisfied, as substantially all of the exhibits subject to the present motion contain
17
the sensitive information referenced above.
18
19
20
21
The court therefore grants the motion to seal Exhibit 4, Exhibit A to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit
A to Exhibit 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/30/2017
22
23
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?