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