MicroTechnologies, LLC v. Autonomy, Inc. et al

Filing 77

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denying 68 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2016)

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

MICROTECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02220-RMW

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

14
15

AUTONOMY, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 68

Defendants.
16
17

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal several of documents related to

18

plaintiff Microtechnologies, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. “Historically, courts have

19

recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

20

records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

21

2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly,

22

when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting

23

point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24

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

25

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

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

27

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous
1

28
5:15-cv-02220-RMW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
RS

1

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

2

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents

3

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should

4

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that

5

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

6

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).
In addition to making particularized showings of compelling reasons or good cause, parties

7
8

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

9

relevant here, “[w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the
Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.
Motion to
Document to be Sealed
Ruling
Reason/Explanation
Seal
68
Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs Motion DENIED. No supporting declaration
for Summary Judgment (68-4)
filed by defendants.
68
Exhibits E-L (68-7)
DENIED. No supporting declaration
filed by defendants.
68
Exhibits O-U (68-9)
DENIED. No supporting declaration
filed by defendants.
68
Unredacted Version of Declaration of
DENIED. No supporting declaration
Anthony Jimenez in Support of
filed by defendants.
Plaintiffs M (68-12)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

All denials are without prejudice. The parties shall file, within 14 days, (1) unredacted

20
21
22
23
24
25

versions of documents consistent with this order or (2) revised sealing motions for the court’s
consideration, with appropriate declarations, addressing the court’s reasons for denial discussed
above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

26
27

2

28
5:15-cv-02220-RMW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
RS