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

Filing 68

ORDER re Notice of Compliance with Sealing Order. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/28/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2015)

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

Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE NOTICE OF
COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING
ORDER

v.

15

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,

16

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 67

17
18

On July 9, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part three administrative sealing

19

motions filed in connection with Defendant Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG’s motion to

20

dismiss. See ECF No. 61. Before the Court is Plaintiff Xilinx, Inc.’s notice of compliance with

21

the Court’s sealing order. ECF No. 67. As part of Plaintiff’s notice of compliance, Plaintiff filed

22

newly redacted versions of two documents, ECF Nos. 51-5 and 51-6. The Court previously

23

denied Plaintiff’s motion to seal these two documents without prejudice. See ECF No. 61.

24

Because filing redacted versions of the two documents effectively renews Plaintiff’s motion to

25

seal, the Court considers below whether the documents contain sealable information.

26
27
28

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
1
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of
overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

6

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

7

Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files

8

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private

9

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

10

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without

12

more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Motions to dismiss are typically treated as

13

dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006).

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Below, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Plaintiff’s renewed request

25

to seal documents in connection with Defendant’s motion to dismiss. With these standards in

26

mind, the Court rules as follows:

27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Document
Motion Standard
to Seal
67
Compelling Declaration of Jason M.
Reasons
Gonder in support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition,
Exhibit 28 (Licensing
Candidate Overview slide
deck)
67
Compelling Declaration of Jason M.
Reasons
Gonder in support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition,
Exhibit 29 (Patent
Purchase Agreement)

Ruling
DENIED with prejudice as to the proposed
redactions on Papst-Juris-0123 and PapstJuris-0125. The Court will not seal publicly
available information. Otherwise, GRANTED
as to the proposed redactions.
DENIED with prejudice as to the proposed
redactions on Papst-Juris-0338, § 1.1. The
Court will not seal publicly available
information. See No. 14-CV-04794, ECF No.
64. Otherwise, GRANTED as to the proposed
redactions.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of Exhibits 28 and 29 to the Declaration of Jason M.
Gonder consistent with this order within seven (7) days.
The Court notes that Defendant has failed to publicly file ECF No. 55-4, Defendant’s reply
brief in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to seal
ECF No. 55-4 with prejudice on July 9, 2015. ECF No. 61. The Court also ordered that, for
motions denied with prejudice, “the submitting party must file an unredacted version of the
document within seven (7) days.” See id. Over five months have passed since the Court’s sealing
order. The Court referred to ECF No. 55-4 in ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No.
62. Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to publicly file an unredacted version of ECF No. 55-4
within seven (7) days of this order. Further delay in compliance with the Court’s orders may
result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 28, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-04963-LHK
ORDER RE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEALING ORDER