Altera Corporation v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh granting in part and denying in part 59 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ALTERA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 59
PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,
Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal a patent purchase agreement and

19

related documents, filed in connection with Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG’s motion

20

to dismiss. ECF No. 59 (“Motion”). The Court previously denied an administrative motion to seal

21

the same documents that are now the subject of the instant Motion. See ECF No. 56 (Order

22

denying motion to seal).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

27

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

1
2

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

3

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447

4

F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when

5

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

6

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

7

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the

8

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

9

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Motions to dismiss are
typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2006).

12

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of

13

court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

14

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

15

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

16

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

17

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

18

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

19

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

20

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

21

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that

22

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

23

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

24

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

25

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

26

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

27

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

28

2
Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

2

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

3

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

4

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

5

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

6

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

7

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant Motion as follows:

8
9

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
59
59-4

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Document to be Sealed
Certain portions of Exhibit K to
the Declaration of Alessa Phang
in Support of Altera’s Amended
Opposition

12

Ruling
GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions on Page 2, § 2.1;
Page 11, § 2.1; Page 27; and
Page 39. Otherwise DENIED
WITH PREJUDICE because
the material sought to be sealed
is not sealable.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: August 11, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-04794-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL