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)

Download PDF
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?