Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom et al

Filing 116

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting Dkt. No. 110 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017)

E-filed 1/5/2017

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FITBIT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

ALIPHCOM, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.15-cv-04073-EJD (HRL)

Re: Dkt. No. 110

12

Pending before this Court is plaintiff Fitbit, Inc.’s (“Fitbit”) Administrative Motion to file

13

under seal portions of certain exhibits to the declaration of Frederick Chung. Dkt. No. 110. This

14

declaration was filed in support of Fitbit’s Motion to Supplement its Infringement Contentions.

15

Dkt. No. 111. For the reasons explained below, the court grants the administrative motion to file

16

under seal.

17

The courts recognize a common-law right of access to public records, and a strong

18

presumption in favor of public access exists. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

19

1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). This right of access, however, is not absolute, and can be

20

overridden. Id. at 1135. The party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming

21

the presumption in favor of access. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

22

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).

23

The court applies one of two standards in evaluating motions to seal: the lower good cause

24

standard, which applies to non-dispositive matters, and the more stringent compelling reasons

25

standard, which applies to dispositive matters. See Luo v. Zynga, Inc., No. 13-cv-00186 NC, 2013

26

WL 5814763, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2013). A motion to supplement infringement

27

contentions is a non-dispositive motion, and so the good cause standard applies here. See Finjan

28

Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 9023164, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015).

1

Under the good cause standard, the party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific

2

prejudice or harm will result” if the document is not filed under seal. Id. at *1 (quoting San Jose

3

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)).

4

The court has reviewed Fitbit’s sealing motion and the supporting declaration. The court

5

finds that Fitbit has established good cause to seal the redacted portions of Exhibits 10-18 to the

6

Chung Declaration, as these portions contain highly confidential source code information, the

7

disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious harm to defendant Jawbone.

8

Additionally, the court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored, as required by Civil Local

9

Rule 79-5(b).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The court therefore grants the motion to seal the redacted portions of Exhibits 10-18 to the
Chung Declaration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/5/2017

14
15
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2