Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.KG

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 50 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 55 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)

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

XILINX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 55
PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO.KG,
Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 55) which

19

were filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

20

Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 52) and Defendant’s Reply in support of Defendant’s Motion to

21

Dismiss (ECF No. 56).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of
1
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Motions to dismiss are

9

typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2006).
In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Motion to Seal
ECF No.
Document to be Sealed
Ruling
50
50-4
Xilinx’s Opposition to Papst’s
GRANTED as to the proposed
Motion to Dismiss
redactions at 7:4-5 and 7:9-24;
otherwise DENIED WITH
PREJUDICE because the
material sought to be sealed is
not sealable.
51
51-2
Gonder Declaration in Support
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
of Xilinx’s Opposition to Papst’s because the material sought to
Motion to Dismiss
be sealed is not sealable.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
51
51-3

Document to be Sealed
Exhibit 26, printouts from public
websites.

51

51-4

Exhibit 27, printouts from public
websites.

51

51-5

Exhibit 28, Licensing Candidate
Overview slide deck.

51

51-6

Exhibit 29, Patent Purchase
Agreement.

51

51-7

Exhibit 30, Letter from FTE to
Rambus.

55

55-4

Defendant’s Reply In Support of
Motion to Dismiss

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Ruling
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable and
Defendant’s supporting
declaration did not indicate
otherwise.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable and
Defendant’s supporting
declaration did not indicate
otherwise.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Defendant should identify
which specific portions of this
Exhibit that it seeks to seal.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Defendant should identify
which specific portions of this
Exhibit that it seeks to seal.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable.

If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the

19

parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting

20

party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: July 9, 2015

__________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL