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)

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. 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?