VIA Technologies, Inc. (a California corporation) et al v. ASUS Computer International et al
Filing
301
OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 289 291 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/11/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2017)
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.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF
OMNIBUS ORDER RE:
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS
[Re: ECF 289, 291]
Defendants.
12
13
14
This order addresses the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their
15
briefing and exhibits in support of their oppositions to motions in limine. ECF 289, 291. For the
16
reasons stated below, the motion at ECF 289 is GRANTED and the motion at ECF 291 is
17
DENIED.
18
19
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
20
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
21
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
22
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
23
“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
24
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
25
1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
26
upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this
27
district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
28
A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the
1
identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or
2
protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient
3
to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.
4
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations submitted in
5
6
support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good
7
cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The Court further notes that certain but
8
not all proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are
9
set forth in the tables below:
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
ECF 289
ECF
Document to be
No.
Sealed
289-4 Ex. 7 to Bhakar Decl.
(Excerpts from the
February 15, 2017
deposition of Miguel
Gomez)
289-6
Ex. 8 to Bhakar Decl.
(Excerpts from the
February 17, 2017
deposition of Miguel
Gomez)
B.
ECF 291
ECF
Document to be
No.
Sealed
291-4 Ex. 1 to Pickens Decl.
(Declaration of Jiin Lai
in support of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion in
Limine No. 1 and
Daubert Motion)
Result
Reasoning
Contains Defendants’ confidential business
information including discussions of the internal
circuit design of Defendants ASMedia’s
products accused of allegedly misappropriating
VIA’s alleged trade secrets asserted in this case.
Bhakar Sealing Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 289-1.
GRANTED Contains Defendants’ confidential business
as to
information including discussions of the internal
highlighted circuit design of Defendants ASMedia’s
portions.
products accused of allegedly misappropriating
VIA’s alleged trade secrets asserted in this case.
Bhakar Sealing Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 289-1.
GRANTED
as to
highlighted
portions.
Result
Reasoning
DENIED.
This exhibit is a declaration which Plaintiffs
seek to seal in its entirety because it contains
confidential business and trade secret
information of Plaintiffs, including the research
and design process for the trade secrets at issue.
Pickens Sealing Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 291-1.
However, sealing the entire exhibit is not
justified because not all contents pertain to
sealable information. This request is thus not
narrowly tailored.
25
26
27
28
2
1
291-6
2
3
Ex. 2 to Pickens Decl.
(Excerpts from the
February 9, 2017
deposition of Melissa
Bennis)
DENIED.
This exhibit contains excerpts from an expert
deposition which Plaintiffs seek to seal in its
entirety because it contains confidential
business and trade secret information of
Plaintiffs, including the research and design
process for the trade secrets at issue. Pickens
Sealing Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 291-1. However, sealing
the entire exhibit is not justified because not all
contents pertain to sealable information. This
request is thus not narrowly tailored.
4
5
6
7
8
9
III.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion at ECF 289 and DENIES the
motion at ECF 291. 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
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser
12
redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form
13
the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion so to provide
14
sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
19
Dated: July 11, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?