Fitbit Inc. v. AliphCom et al.

Filing 99

ORDER GRANTING 96 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/25/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FITBIT INC,

Case No. 16-cv-00118-BLF
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO SEAL

9
10

ALIPHCOM, et al.,

[Re: ECF 96]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) moves to file under seal portions its Reply Claim

13
14

Construction Brief and Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Frederick Chung in Support thereof. ECF

15

96. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1
2
3

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

DISCUSSION
Fitbit moves to seal portions of page 5 of its Reply Claim Construction Brief and Exhibit 5

to the Declaration of Frederick Chung in Support thereof. ECF 96 at 1; ECF 96-3 at 5. This

5

information has been designated confidential by Defendants AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and

6

BodyMedia, Inc. (“Jawbone”) pursuant to the protective order entered by the United States

7

International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in Investigation Number 337-TA-973. ECF 96 at 1.

8

Fitbit has filed a declaration stating the same. ECF 96-1 ¶ 2. Jawbone, however, has not also filed

9

a supporting declaration, even though it is the designating party. Nevertheless, the Court finds

10

that Fitbit’s motion and declaration are sufficient to show compelling reasons and good cause to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

seal the designated portions of page 5 of Fitbit’s Reply Claim Construction Brief and Exhibit 5 to

12

the Declaration of Frederick Chung in Support thereof. The Court also finds the sealing request to

13

be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Fitbit’s motion to seal.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: January 25, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2