Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation et al

Filing 138

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying 124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 126 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall refile unredacted copies of their consolidated class action complaints, which will be publicly accessible, within 7 days of the date of this order. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2016)

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

IN RE RESISTORS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 5:15-cv-03820-RMW

This Document Relates to:

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

13
14

All Actions

Re: Dkt. Nos. 124, 126

15
16
17

Before the court are administrative motions to seal the Direct and Indirect Purchasers’

18

consolidated class action complaints. Dkt. Nos. 124, 126. “Historically, courts have recognized a

19

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

20

documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

21

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

22

considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id.

23

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

24

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

25

presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public

26

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-03820-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL
TN

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.”).

7

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

8

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

9

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach

13

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table

14

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unredacted version

15

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

16

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

17

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

18

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

19

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

20

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.
Motion
Document to be
Ruling
Reason/Explanation
to Seal
Sealed
1241
Consolidated
DENIED. Proposed redactions of ¶¶ 6, 10, 43, 81, 88, and 100
Amended Class
are not narrowly tailored to confidential business
Action Complaint
information. Defendant’s unspecific declaration does
(Direct Purchaser
not explain why portions of these paragraphs, if any,
Actions) (124-3)
are trade secrets.
Defendant did not object to revelation of some of the
information from ¶¶ 10 and 100 in ¶ 120.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Notwithstanding direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claim that their consolidated amended class action
complaint contains no confidential information, in the future if there are any portions of a
2
5:15-cv-03820-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL
TN

1
2
3

126

Consolidated
Class Action
Complaint
(Indirect
Purchaser
Actions) (126-5)

4
5
6
7
8
9

DENIED. Proposed redactions of ¶¶ 110, 139, and 143 are not
narrowly tailored to confidential business
information. Defendant’s unspecific declaration does
not explain why portions of these paragraphs, if any,
are trade secrets.
No supporting declaration filed for the remaining
proposed redactions of ¶¶ 94-109, 111-112, 123-138,
140-142, and 144.

Plaintiffs shall refile unredacted copies of their consolidated class action complaints, which
will be publicly accessible, within 7 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

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

document for which there is doubt as to confidentiality, the parties should highlight such portions
in an unredacted version of the document and list such portions pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5 to
facilitate the court’s review.
3
5:15-cv-03820-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL
TN