Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc.

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 103 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying as moot 108 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; granting 109 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2016)

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

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.16-CV-00925-LHK

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

v.
XILINX INC,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 108, 109
Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court are administrative motions by both parties to file under seal documents

19

and briefing related to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. ECF Nos. 103, 109. Also before

20

the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document. ECF No. 108.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in

25

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

26
27
28

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
1
Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

1

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,

2

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

3

supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public

4

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons

5

justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a

6

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

7

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435

8

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

9

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

court to seal its records.” Id.
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

12

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

13

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court

14

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or

15

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

16

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the

17

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The

19

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

20

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

21

Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

22

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d

23

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

24

In the instant motions, the parties seek to seal documents and briefing related to

25

Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Because a motion for attorneys’ fees is “not related, or

26

only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” the Court applies the “good cause” standard to

27
28

2
Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

1
2

evaluate the parties’ sealing requests. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099
Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

3

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

4

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

5

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

6

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

7

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

8

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

9

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the
production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that

12

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

13

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

14

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

15

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

16

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

17

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

18

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

19

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

20

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

21

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

22

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

23

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

24

With these principles in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Document
Motion Standard
to Seal
103
Good
Defendant’s Motion for
Cause
Attorneys’ Fees and the
Declaration of Glenn E.
Westreich in Support of
Defendant’s Motion
109
Good
Exhibit 2 to the
Cause
Declaration of Nicole E.
Glauser in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees

Ruling
GRANTED

GRANTED

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remove Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicole
E. Glauser as improperly filed. ECF No. 108. This exhibit, which contains confidential
information, was originally filed publicly. However, the exhibit has since been locked, and the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court has granted Plaintiff’s request to file the exhibit under seal. Accordingly, the motion to

12

remove the exhibit as improperly filed is DENIED AS MOOT.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: July 28, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE
INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT