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

Filing 250

ORDER GRANTING 247 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/5/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)

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.

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF
ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

This order addresses Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal an exhibit in

15

support of their summary judgment motion. ECF 247. For the reasons stated below, the motion is

16

GRANTED.

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

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ sealing motion and declarations of Paul Kroeger and

4
5

Michelle McLeod in support thereof. According to McLeod’s declaration, the exhibit is an

6

excerpt of James Pampinella’s expert report and should be sealed because it contains

7

competitively sensitive information regarding Defendants’ revenues, sales, company structure, and

8

their business relationships. McLeod Decl., ECF 248 ¶¶ 3-5. This sealing motion is not opposed

9

by any party.
The Court finds that the “compelling” standard applies, as Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

judgment is “related to the merits of a case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. Because

12

the exhibit to be sealed contains sensitive information that Defendants’ competitors could use to

13

their advantage, they are appropriately sealable.

14

III.

15

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 247 is GRANTED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: April 5, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2