Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al

Filing 287

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: 227 230 233 236 239 251 253 255 258 260 268 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/23/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Case No. 5:15-cv-05836-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

OMNIBUS ORDER RE:
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.
10
11

COREL CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 239, 251,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
253, 255, 258, 260, 268

12
13

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by the parties in connection with

14
15

their motions in limine and other pretrial orders. For the reasons set forth below, the motions at

16

Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and 268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is

17

GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253, 255, and 260 are GRANTED IN PART and

18

DENIED IN PART.

19
20

I.

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

21

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

22

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

23

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

24

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

25

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

26

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

27

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

28

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
1

1

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

2

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

3

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

4

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

5

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

6
7

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed each of the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations submitted

8

in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good

9

cause to seal the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The
Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

A. Dkt. No. 227
Materials to be Sealed
Corel’s Motion in Limine #1 to
Preclude Certain Pre-Suit Notice
Testimony
Exhibit 2 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#1 (excerpts of the 30(b)(6) deposition
transcript of Microsoft)
Exhibit 3 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#1 (Microsoft Corporation’s Responses
to Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
Exhibit 5 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#1 (parties’ draft joint letter brief)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit 6 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#1 (email from Olga May, counsel for
Microsoft, dated March 21, 2017)

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice
DENIED
without
prejudice
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

DENIED
without
prejudice
DENIED
without
prejudice

Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

B. Dkt. No. 230
Materials to be Sealed
Order
Reasoning
Corel’s Motion in Limine #2 to
DENIED
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Exclude Any Evidence that Contradicts without
filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Microsoft’s 30(b)(6) Witness
prejudice
Testimony on Pre-Suit Notice
Exhibit 2 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
DENIED
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (excerpts of the 30(b)(6) deposition without
filed a declaration in support of sealing.
transcript of Microsoft)
prejudice
Exhibit 3 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
DENIED
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (Microsoft Corporation’s Responses without
filed a declaration in support of sealing.
to Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
prejudice
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
Exhibit 5 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
DENIED
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
2

1
2
3
4
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

#2 (parties’ draft joint letter brief)
Exhibit 6 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#2 (email from Olga May, counsel for
Microsoft, dated March 21, 2017)

C. Dkt. No. 233
Materials to be Sealed
Exhibit 4 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#3 (Microsoft Corporation’s Responses
to Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
D. Dkt. No. 236
Materials to be Sealed
Exhibit 1 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#4 (excerpts of the Greg Wood’s
deposition transcript, dated May 19,
2016, from Corel Software, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00528JNP (D. Utah) (“Utah Case”))
Exhibit 6 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#4 (Microsoft Corporation’s Responses
to Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))

E. Dkt. No. 239
Materials to be Sealed
Exhibit 1 to Corel’s Motion in Limine
#5 (Opening Expert Report of
Ambreen Salters on Behalf of
Microsoft Corporation)
F. Dkt. No. 251
Materials to be Sealed
Microsoft’s Motion in Limine No. 2:
Exclusion of Reference to Fish &
Richardson as former Counsel to Corel

without
prejudice
DENIED
without
prejudice

filed a declaration in support of sealing.

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
The only reason provided for sealing is
that the excerpts were designated
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant
to the Protective Order entered in the
Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 236-1.
However this, in and of itself, is not a
sufficient basis for sealing.
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

DENIED
without
prejudice

Order
GRANTED.

Reasoning
Contains confidential information to
Microsoft. Dkt. No. 263.

Order
DENIED.

Reasoning
Corel, the designating party, does not
seek the sealing of the portions of the
MSFT MIL # 2 that excerpt or reference
the personal deposition of Eleanor
Lacey. Dkt. No. 262.
Corel, the designating party, does not
seek the sealing of Exhibit A. Dkt. No.
262.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit A to Microsoft’s Motion in
Limine No. 2 (excerpts from the
personal deposition of Eleanor Lacey)

Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

DENIED.

G. Dkt. No. 253
Materials to be Sealed
Order
Reasoning
Microsoft’s Motion in Limine No. 3:
GRANTED.
Contains confidential information
Exclusion of Reference to Corel’s
relating to Ability’s and Corel’s licensing
Counterclaims and Affirmative
relationship, including sensitive business
Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
3

1
2
3

Defenses

Exhibit A to Microsoft’s Motion in
Limine No. 3 (excerpts to the
deposition transcript of Russell Miller)

GRANTED.

Exhibit B to Microsoft’s Motion in
Limine No. 3 (excerpts from the
personal deposition of Patrick Nichols)

DENIED.

4
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
27
28

H. Dkt. No. 255
Materials to be Sealed
Corel’s Opposition to Microsoft’s
Motion In Limine No. 1: Exclusion of
Evidence or Arguments Relating to
Non-Infringement or Invalidity of the
Asserted Patents
Exhibit 1 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 1
(email from Microsoft, dated
December 20, 2016)
Exhibit 2 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 1
(Microsoft Corporation’s Responses to
Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))

I. Dkt. No. 258
Materials to be Sealed
Exhibit 1 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 2:
Exclusion of Reference to Fish &
Richardson as Former Counsel to Corel
(Microsoft Corporation’s Responses to
Corel Corporation’s Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
J. Dkt. No. 260
Materials to be Sealed
Corel’s Opposition to Microsoft’s
Motion In Limine No. 3: Exclusion of
Reference to Corel’s Counterclaims
and Affirmative Defenses

information about Ability’s licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
262-1.
Contains confidential information
relating to Ability’s and Corel’s licensing
relationship, including sensitive business
information about Ability’s licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
262-1.
Corel, the designating party, does not
seek the sealing of Exhibit B. Dkt. No.
262.

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

GRANTED.

Contains highly sensitive business
information concerning the relationship
between Microsoft and Corel and
confidential financial information. Dkt.
No. 255-1 ¶ 4.
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

DENIED
without
prejudice

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice as to
the
highlighted
portions on p.
1 ll. 13-16;
GRANTED
as to the

For the highlighted portions on p. 1 ll.
13-16: Microsoft, the designating party,
has not filed a declaration in support of
sealing. For the remainder: contains
confidential business information
relating to Corel and/or Ability. See Dkt.
No. 260-1 ¶¶ 5-8.

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
4

1
2
3
4
5

Exhibit 2 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 3
(excerpts of the deposition transcript of
Jay Paulus, 30(b)(6) witness for
Microsoft)
Exhibit 5 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 3
(excerpts from the personal deposition
of third party Christopher England)

remainder.
DENIED
without
prejudice
GRANTED.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Exhibit 6 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 3
(Confidential Information
Memorandum, dated November 7,
2006, that was prepared on behalf of
Ability and shared with Corel)
Exhibit 7 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 3
(confidential licensing agreement
between Corel and third party Ability
International Software (UK))
Exhibit 8 to Corel’s Opposition to
Microsoft’s Motion In Limine No. 3
(excerpts of the personal deposition
transcript of Russell Miller)

GRANTED.

Contains sensitive financial and business
information, including contract price and
Corel’s valuation of the license. Dkt.
No. 260-1 ¶ 7.

GRANTED.

Contains confidential information
relating to Ability’s and Corel’s licensing
relationship, including sensitive business
information about development of
products, and Ability’s licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
260-1 ¶ 8.

Order
DENIED
without
prejudice

Reasoning
The only reason provided for sealing is
that the excerpts were designated
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant
to the Protective Order entered in the
Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 281. However
this, in and of itself, is not a sufficient
basis for sealing.
The only reason provided for sealing is
that the excerpts were designated
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant
to the Protective Order entered in the
Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 281. However
this, in and of itself, is not a sufficient
basis for sealing.

17

19
20
21

K. Dkt. No. 268
Materials to be Sealed
Microsoft’s Opposition to Corel’s
Motion in Limine #2: Exclude Any
Evidence that Contradicts Microsoft’s
30(b)(6) Witness Testimony on PreSuit Notice

22
23
24
25
26

Exhibit B to Microsoft’s Opposition to
Corel’s Motion in Limine #2 (excerpts
from the deposition transcript of
Russell Miller)

Contains confidential information
relating to Ability’s and Corel’s licensing
relationship, including sensitive business
information about development of
products, and Ability’s licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
260-1 ¶ 5.
Contains highly sensitive information
concerning the business relationship
between Ability and Corel. Dkt. No.
260-1 ¶ 6.

GRANTED.

16

18

Microsoft, the designating party, has not
filed a declaration in support of sealing.

DENIED
without
prejudice

27
28

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
5

1

III.

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the motions at Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and

2
268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253,
3
255, and 260 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 794
5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as
5
confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the
6
submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no
7
earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: January 23, 2018
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05836-EJD
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
6