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)

Download PDF
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

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?