Tessera, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation

Filing 183

OMNIBUS ORDER RE 176 , 178 , 181 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/24/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

TESSERA, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-02543-BLF

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

OMNIBUS ORDER RE:
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS
[Re: ECF 176, 178, 181]

9
10
Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal, two from Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

and one from Defendant Toshiba Corp. See ECF 176, 178, 181. The motions relate to the

13

briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below,

14

the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

15
16

I.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

9

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

16

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

17

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

II.

DISCUSSION
The sealing motions at issue are resolved under the compelling reasons standard because

5
6

motions for summary judgment are more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. With

7

this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

8
9

ECF
No.
176-3

Document to
be Sealed
Toshiba’s
Reply to
Tessera’s
Opposition to
Toshiba’s
Motion for
Summary
Judgment

176-4

Ex. 1 to Liang
Declr.

GRANTED

178-4

Tessera’s
Reply in
Support of
Motion for
Partial
Summary
Judgment

DENIED for deposition
testimony designated as
confidential for failure to
provide sufficient reason
to seal. GRANTED as to
the remainder.

178-5

Ex. 1 to Reply

GRANTED

178-6

Ex. 2 to Reply

DENIED

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Result

Reasoning

DENIED for deposition
testimony designated as
confidential for failure to
provide sufficient reason
to seal. GRANTED as to
the remainder.

Contains discussions about and language
from confidential license agreements
between the parties, confidential
communications between Tessera and
Tessera’s third-party business partners,
directly quotes or references audit and
royalty correspondence between the
parties and deposition testimony that
Toshiba and/or Tessera has designated as
confidential, and information the Court
previously sealed. ECF 51.
Contains excerpts from the deposition
transcript of former Tessera employee
Christopher Pickett that include
discussion of the parties’ confidential
negotiation of the Agreement.
Contains information the Court
previously sealed (see ECF 51),
confidential license negotiation
documents, audit and royalty
correspondence between the parties, and
deposition testimony the parties have
designated as confidential under the
protective order in this case.
Contains information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 174.
Contains excerpts from the deposition
transcript of Toshiba employee Hiroshi
Miyauchi that include information about
Toshiba’s business that Toshiba has
represented is proprietary. Denied
because the designating party did not
provide a supporting declaration.

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

1

181-4

Ex. 6 to
Glasser Declr.
Ex. 11 to
Glasser Declr.
Ex. 15 to
Glasser Declr.
Ex. 16 to
Glasser Declr.

GRANTED

181-12

Ex. 17 to
Glasser Declr.

GRANTED

181-14

Ex. 18 to
Glasser Declr.

GRANTED

181-15

Ex. 19 to
Glasser Declr.

GRANTED

181-18

Ex. 22 to
Glaser Declr.

GRANTED

2

181-6

3

181-8

4

181-10

5

Contains information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 51.
Contains information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.
Contains information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 51, 170.
Contains confidential terms and
conditions of Tessera’s licenses,
including royalty rates and amounts,
license fees, buy-down terms, and
indemnity provisions.
Contains confidential terms and
conditions of Tessera’s licenses,
including royalty rates and amounts,
license fees, buy-down terms, and
indemnity provisions.
Contains confidential terms and
conditions of Tessera’s licenses,
including royalty rates and amounts,
license fees, buy-down terms, and
indemnity provisions.
Contains confidential terms and
conditions of Tessera’s licenses,
including royalty rates and amounts,
license fees, buy-down terms, indemnity
provisions, and information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.
Contains information the Court
previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 176, 178, and 181 are GRANTED

20

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has

21

been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective

22

order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or

23

lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days

24

from the filing of this order.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
4