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

Filing 243

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 217 , 218 , 231 , 239 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/28/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS
[Re: ECF 217, 218, 231, 239]

10
11

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This order addresses the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their

14
15

briefing and exhibits in support of their summary judgment motions. ECF 217, 218, 231, 239.

16

For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

21

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

22

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

23

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

24

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

25

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

26

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

27

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

28

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

1

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

2

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

3
4

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and declarations in support thereof.

5

The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of most of

6

the submitted documents. For requests that were denied below, the parties’ declarations fail to

7

establish that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a

8

stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is

9

not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. The compelling
reasons standard must be met even as to documents that were previously filed under seal or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court further notes that certain but not all

12

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth

13

in the tables below:

14

A.
ECF 217
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Notice of Motion and Motion
For Summary Judgment
Infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 8,476,747 and Partial
Summary Judgment of No
Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,313,187 and 8,476,747
(“Motion for
Summary Judgment”)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. 1 to Gomez Decl.
(Gomez’s expert report
regarding patent infringement)

Description of Documents
and Request
Highlighted portions at
Pages 9-12, 14, and 15 in their
entirety, at 13:1-23; and at
16:1-25 contain circuit
schematics and sensitive
information about the products
of Defendants ASUS
Computer Int’l, ASUSTeK
Computer Inc., and ASMedia
Tech. Inc. (“ASMedia”),
(collectively, “ASUS”).
Paragraphs 23 and 25 contain
confidential customer
information to ASMedia Tech.
Inc.
Paragraphs 62, 64-72, 74, 7682, 85, 87-88, 91, 93-94, 98102, 104-106, 110-114, 118,
121, 123-128, 130, 132-137,
139, 141, 147-151, 153-155,
157-170, 174-188, 190-203,
2

Court’s Order
GRANTED as to the
highlighted positions.

GRANTED as to Paragraphs
23, 25, 62, 64-72, 74, 76-82,
85, 87-88, 91, 93-94, 98-102,
104-106, 110-114, 118, 121,
123-128, 130, 132-137, 139,
141, 147-151, 153-155, 157170, 174-188, 190-203, 205206, 211-215, and 217-230;
and DENIED as to remainder.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Exhibits 11-17 to Kroeger
Decl.
Exhibit 21 to Kroeger Decl.
(Baker’s expert report
regarding non-infringement)

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.
ECF 218
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
ASUS’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment

12
13
14
15

Ex. 6 to Bhaker Decl. (Feb. 15
and 17, 2017 Gomez Dep. Tr.)

16
17

Exs. A and B to Wang Decl.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exs. F and G to Zhang Decl.

205-206, 211-215, and 217230 contain confidential
information relating to ASUS
products.
The exhibits contain
confidential information on the
design of ASMedia’s products
Pages 21-32 in their entirety,
paragraphs 81-85, 87, 107, and
attachment 2 and attachment 3
contain confidential
information on ASMedia’s
products, such as product
design and manufacture.
Description of Documents
and Request
15:11-12; 15:14-17; 15:18-20;
16:2-8 contain materials where
the parties have designated as
highly confidential.
Declarations provide no
compelling reasons.
Highlighted portions contain
materials where the parties
have designated as highly
confidential. Declarations
provide no compelling reasons.
These exhibits are the criminal
complaint and supplemental
criminal complaint for search
and seizure to the Taiwan
Prosecution Office. The Court
finds these documents as those
“traditionally kept secret,”
such as grand jury transcripts
and warrant materials during
the pre-indictment phase of an
investigation, and thus
sealable. Kamakana, 447 F.3d
at 1185.
These exhibits are certified
translations of Exs. A and B to
Wang Decl. These are
sealable for the same reasons
as Exs. A and B to Wang Decl.
above.
3

GRANTED.

GRANTED as to pages 21-32
in their entirety; and
paragraphs 81-85, 87, 107, and
attachment 2 and attachment 3;
and DENIED as to remainder.

Court’s Order
DENIED.

DENIED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

1
2

Exs. K, L, M, and R to
Lemieux Decl. (Excerpts of
Dep. Trs. of Lai and Chen).

3
4
5
6
7

C.
ECF 231
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Ex. 1 to Gomez Decl. ISO
Plaintiffs’ opposition to
Defendants’ Summary
Judgment Motion

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

The exhibits contain materials DENIED.
where the parties have
designated as highly
confidential. Declarations
provide no compelling reasons.
Description of Documents
and Request
This exhibit is an expert report
and VIA seeks to seal the
entirety of this exhibit because
it contains trade secret
information on VIA’s
products. However, sealing
the entire exhibit is not
justified because not all
paragraphs pertain to sealable
information. This request is
thus not narrowly tailored.
ASUS seeks to seal pages 4551, 102-103, 105-106, 108,
110, and 112; and paragraphs
117-123, 188-198 because they
contain design and
manufacture information on
ASMedia’s chips.

Court’s Order
GRANTED as to pages 45-51,
102-103, 105-106, 108, 110,
and 112; and paragraphs 117123, 188-198; and DENIED as
to remainder.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

D.
ECF 239
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further
Support of Their Motion for
Summary Judgment of
Infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 8,467,747 and Partial
Summary Judgment of No
Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,131,187 and 8,467,747 (the
“Reply”).
Exhibit 24 to the Declaration
of Paul A. Kroeger in Support
of Plaintiffs’ Reply.
Exhibit 25 to the Declaration
of Paul A. Kroeger in Support
of Plaintiffs’ Reply.

Description of Documents
and Request
Highlighted portions at 2:2126, 3:2-5 contain confidential
information regarding
ASMedia’ revenues and sales.

Court’s Order
GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

Highlighted portions at 35:22- GRANTED as to the
37:13 contain competitive
highlighted portions.
information and identify
ASMedia’s customers.
This is purportedly an expert
DENIED.
report of James Pampinella
and VIA seeks to seal the
entirety of this exhibit because
it contains confidential revenue
4

and sales information. VIA
fails to file an unredacted
version of this exhibit,
preventing the Court from
evaluating whether the entire
exhibit contains sealable
information and that the
redaction is narrowly tailored.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

sealing motions at ECF 217, 218, 231, 239. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request
that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a
protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the
unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days form the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the
motion so to provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days form
the filing of this order.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: March 28, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5