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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?