InterDigital Technology Corporation et al v. Pegatron Corporation

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 32 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 35 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 10 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2015)

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

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, et al.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 32, 35

15
PEGATRON CORPORATION,
16
17

Defendant.

18

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 10, 32, and 35) which

19

were filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order

20

and (2) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12), Defendant’s

21

Opposition thereto (ECF No. 33), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 36).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of
1
Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

2

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana,

3

447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist

4

“when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

5

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

6

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the

7

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

8

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. This Court, and others

9

in this district, have applied the “compelling reasons” standard in deciding parties’ requests to seal

10

materials submitted in connection with motions for preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-630-LHK, 2012 WL 2936432 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); see

12

also Wells Fargo and Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., No. 12-CV-3856-PJH, 2013 WL 897914

13

(N.D. Cal. March 8, 2013).

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

18

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

24

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Motion to Seal
ECF No.
Document to be Sealed
Ruling
10
10-2
Exhibit A to the Strandness
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration, Wireless Patent
PREJUDICE because the
License Agreement.
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
10
10-3

2
3
10

10-6

10

10-7

10

10-8

10

10-9

10

10-10

10

10-11

10

10-12

10

10-13

10

10-15

10

4

10-17

10

10-18

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
26

Document to be Sealed
Exhibit B to the Strandness
Declaration, InterDigital’s
Petition for Order Confirming
Arbitration Award.

Ruling
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
as to the proposed redactions at
2:22-23 and 3:20-24 because
the material is not sealable;
otherwise GRANTED.
Exhibit E to the Strandness
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration, English-translated
PREJUDICE because the
version of Pegatron’s February
request is not “narrowly
3, 2015 Civil Complaint.
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Exhibit F to the Strandness
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration, non-translated
PREJUDICE because the
version of Pegatron’s February
request is not “narrowly
3, 2015 Civil Complaint.
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Exhibit G to the Strandness
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Declaration, letter from M.
because the document is not
MacNichol to L. Chao.
sealable.
Exhibit H to the Strandness
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Declaration, letter from D.
because the document is not
Huang to M. MacNichol.
sealable.
Exhibit I to the Strandness
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Declaration, letter from C. Henry because the document is not
to L. Chao.
sealable.
Exhibit J to the Strandness
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Declaration, letter from D.
because the document is not
Huang to C. Henry.
sealable.
Exhibit K to the Strandness
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration, InterDigital’s
PREJUDICE because the
Statement of Claim.
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Exhibit L to the Strandness
GRANTED as to the proposed
Declaration, Henry Declaration. redactions to paragraphs 7, 10,
and 15; otherwise DENIED
WITH PREJUDICE because
the material is not sealable.
Exhibit N to the Strandness
GRANTED as to the proposed
Declaration, Plaintiff’s
redactions at 1:14-15, 1:18-20,
Complaint.
and 4:23-26; otherwise
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.
Exhibit P to the Strandness
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration, final Arbitration
PREJUDICE because the
Award.
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Exhibit Q to the Strandness
GRANTED as to the proposed
Declaration, InterDigital’s
redactions at 1:19-20, 1:22-24,
Memorandum ISO Ex Parte
4:2-3, 5:12-15, 5:27, and 6:1-5;
Application.
otherwise DENIED WITH
PREJUDICE because the
material is not sealable.

27
28

3
Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
32
32-4
32

32-6

Document to be Sealed
Pegatron’s Opposition to
InterDigital’s Ex Parte
Application.
Declaration of L. Chao.

32

32-8

Declaration of H. Huang.

35

35-3

Exhibit A to Yoo Declaration,
Declaration of J. Schultz.

35

35-5

Exhibit C to Yoo Declaration,
InterDigital’s Reply ISO Ex
Parte Application.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Ruling
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the material is not
sealable.

If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the
parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting
party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: June 29, 2015

_______________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL