ASUS Computer International et al v. InterDigital, Inc. et al

Filing 110

ORDER GRANTING 94 , 108 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/1/2016. blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2016) Modified on 9/1/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTIONS

v.

10
11

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF

INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al.,

[Re: ECF 94, 108]

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiffs move to seal the highlighted portion of an exhibit to the Declaration of Anna

15

Weinberg, submitted with the Notice of Arbitral Tribunals Decision on Arbitrability, ECF 94, the

16

entirety of certain exhibits, submitted with the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), as well as

17

portions of the FAC. ECF 108. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED.

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 and 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.

27

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

28

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in

1

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79 -

2

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

3

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

4

sealable.” Id.

5
6

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motions and respective declarations in support thereof.

7

The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted documents.

8

The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request 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

A.
ECF 94
Identification of Documents
Description of Documents
to be Sealed
Highlighted portions of Exhibit Highlighted portions of
A to Declaration of Anna
arbitration interim award
Weinberg
contain confidential business
and proprietary information
and also should remain
confidential under arbitration
rules.
B.
ECF 108
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Exhibits A, B, C, and D to
Declaration of Ezekiel
Rauscher in their entirety

Description of Documents

Exhibits to the First Amended
Complaint relate to parties’
patent license and nondisclosure agreements and
contain proprietary business
information.
Highlighted portions of Exhibit Highlighted portions of the
E to Declaration of Ezekiel
First Amended Complaint
Rauscher
contain discussions of
proprietary business
information.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Court’s Order
GRANTED.

Court’s Order
GRANTED.

GRANTED.

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS sealing motions at ECF 94 and 108.

2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: September 1, 2016
6
7

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3