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

Filing 193

ORDER GRANTING 191 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/26/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11

INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 191]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to

13
14

Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain

15

exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

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

18

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

19

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

20

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

21

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

22

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

23

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

24

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

25

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

26

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

27

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

28

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

1

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

2

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

3

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

5

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

6

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

7

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

8

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

9

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

12

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

13

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

14

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

15

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

16

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

17

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

18

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

19

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

21

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

22

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

23

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

24

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

25

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

26

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

27

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

28

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2

1

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

2

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

3

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

4

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

5

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to Defendants’ First Amended Answer and

6

Counterclaims, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion

8

is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. The Court has reviewed the declarations

9

submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of sealing. Yen Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal

10

(“Yen Decl.”), ECF 191-1; Lin Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal (“Lin Decl.”), ECF 192. The Court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the portions sought to be sealed.

12

The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court’s rulings on the

13

sealing motion are set forth in the table below:

14
15
16

ECF
No.
191-2

17

(Defendants’ Motion to
Amend Scheduling
Order and for Leave to
File First Amended
Counterclaims
(“Motion to Amend”))

18
19
20
21
22
23

Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit A to the
Sealing Declaration

191-4

Exhibit C to the
Sealing Declaration
(Defendants’ File First
Amended
Counterclaims)

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to yellow
highlighted
portions.

GRANTED as
to yellow
highlighted
portions.

24
25
26
27
28
3

The proposed redactions at 1:25-27; 2:3-27;
3:1-28; 4:4-5; 4:8-9; 4:11-22; 4:24-5:2; 5:410; 5:12-24; 8:10-16; 9:2; 9:11-13; and
10:17-22 contain information related to
highly confidential patent license
agreements of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
third-party Quanta, disclosure of which
could cause substantial economic harm to
Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 3–
4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.
The proposed redactions at 22:21-24; 24:1-2;
24:12-26:2; 26:4-27; 27:1-12; 27:16-28:4;
28:8-12; 29:23-25; 29:27; and 30:1-17
contain information related to highly
confidential patent license agreements of
Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third-party
Quanta, disclosure of which could cause
substantial economic harm to Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶¶ 2, 5.

1

191-6

2

Exhibit E to the Sealing GRANTED.
Declaration

The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
deposition transcript of Vincent Hong, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
confidential terms of the patent license
agreement between the parties as well as
information on a confidential royalty
negotiation with a third party, disclosure of
which could cause competitive harm to
Plaintiffs, Quanta, and the third party.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 5.
The entire exhibit contains information on
confidential patent license agreements
between Defendants and third party Quanta,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Defendants and
Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.
The entire exhibit contains information on
confidential patent license agreements
between Defendants and third party Quanta,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Defendants and
Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.
The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
deposition transcript of Vivian Yeh, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
confidential business negotiations between
the parties and confidential communication
between Plaintiffs and Quant regarding
royalty payments, disclosure of which could
cause competitive harm to Plaintiffs and
Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 6.
The entire exhibit contains communication
between employees of third party Quanta
and Plaintiffs regarding confidential royalty
payments, disclosure of which could cause
competitive harm to Plaintiffs and Quanta.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 7.
The entire exhibit includes confidential
business negotiations between the parties
regarding their patent license agreement,
disclosure of which could cause competitive
harm to Plaintiffs and Defendants. Mot. 3;
Lin Decl. ¶ 8.
The entire exhibit consists of a letter from
Defendants’ general counsel to Vivian Yeh,
an employee of Plaintiffs. The letter
contains information related to confidential
business negotiations between the parties,
disclosure of which would lead to the
violation of the parties’ patent license
agreement and cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin
Decl. ¶ 9.

(Ex. 2 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

3
4
5
6

191-7

7
8
9

191-8

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

191-9

Exhibit F to the Sealing
Declaration
(Ex. 3 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
Exhibit G to the
Sealing Declaration
(Ex. 4 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
Exhibit H to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

(Ex. 5 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

191-10 Exhibit I to the Sealing
Declaration
(Ex. 6 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-11 Exhibit J to the Sealing
Declaration
(Ex. 7 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-12 Exhibit K to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

(Ex. 8 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

26
27
28
4

1
2
3

191-13 Exhibit L to the Sealing GRANTED.
Declaration

The entire exhibit includes an email
communication between the parties. The
contained information relates to confidential
business negotiations between the parties
regarding their royalty pay arrangement,
disclosure of which would lead to violation
of the parties’ patent license agreement and
cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 10.
The entire exhibit contains confidential
information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to
Defendants, disclosure of which would cause
substantial economic harm to Defendants and
Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶ 15.
The entire exhibit contains confidential
information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to
Defendants, disclosure of which would
cause substantial economic harm to
Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶ 16.
The exhibit includes an email
communication between Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and third party Quanta
regarding confidential royalty payments,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 11.
The entire exhibit contains confidential
information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to
Defendants, disclosure of which would
cause substantial economic harm to
Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶ 17.
The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
deposition transcript of Louise Thai, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
confidential business communication
between Plaintiffs and Quanta regarding
royalty payments, disclosure of which could
cause competitive harm to the parties and
Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.
The exhibit includes an email
communication between Plaintiffs and
Quanta regarding confidential royalty
payments, disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.

(Ex. 9 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

4
5
6
7
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

191-14 Exhibit M to the
Sealing Declaration
(Ex. 10 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-15 Exhibit N to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

(Ex. 11 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-16 Exhibit O to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

(Ex. 12 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-17 Exhibit P to the Sealing GRANTED.
Declaration
(Ex. 13 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-18 Exhibit Q to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

(Ex. 14 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-19 Exhibit R to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

(Ex. 15 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

26
27
28
5

1
2
3
4
5

(Ex. 16 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)
191-21 Exhibit T to the Sealing GRANTED.
Declaration
(Ex. 20 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

6
7
8
9

191-22 Exhibit U to the
Sealing Declaration

GRANTED.

(Ex. 21 to Yen Decl. in
Supp. of Motion to
Amend)

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

The exhibit includes an email
communication between Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and third party Quanta
regarding confidential royalty payments,
disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 13.
The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
testimony of Ranae McElvaine, an
Interdigital employee. The exhibit contains
information relating to Defendants’
confidential patent licensing agreement with
Quanta, disclosure of which could cause
substantial economic harm to Defendants
and Quanta. Mot. 5; Yen Decl. ¶ 22.
The exhibit contains a highly sensitive
communication between Defendants and
third party Quanta. The communication
relates to confidential financial information
regarding Defendants’ patent licensing
arrangement with Quanta, disclosure of
which could cause substantial economic
harm to Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 5;
Yen Decl. ¶ 23.

191-20 Exhibit S to the Sealing GRANTED.
Declaration

12
13
14
15
16

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ sealing motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: April 26, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6