Carlos Reyna v. Arris International plc

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 59 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 60 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018)

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

CARLOS REYNA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC,

Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART SEALING
MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 59, 60

Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal. ECF Nos. 59, 60.

19

Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of (1) the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint

20

(“SACC”) and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Consolidated Class

21

Action Complaint (“TACC”) based on Defendant or Intel’s designation of certain material as

22

confidential. Id. Defendant filed declarations in support of the administrative motions to file under

23

seal in which Defendant seeks to seal a narrower subset of the information that Plaintiffs identified

24

as sealable. ECF Nos. 65, 66.

25

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

26

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

27

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
1

28

Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

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

2

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

3

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

court to seal its records.” Id.

14

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

27
28

2
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court
documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

9

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Here, the documents that the parties seek to seal are either an amended complaint or a

24

motion for leave to file an amended complaint. A complaint is “more than tangentially related to the

25

underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. Indeed, this Court and other courts

26

have held that the compelling reasons standard applies to the sealing of a complaint precisely because

27
28

3
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

the complaint forms the foundation of the lawsuit. See Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, No. 16-CV-02763-

2

BLF, 2017 WL 3605226, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017); In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-

3

02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013); Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 12-CV-

4

03305-LHK, 2013 WL 4428853, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative

5

Litig., 06-CV-06110-SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008); Nucal Foods, Inc. v.

6

Quality Egg LLC, No. 10-CV-03105-KJM, 2012 WL 260078, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012).

7

Accordingly, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to the instant motions to seal.

8
9

Defendant and Intel seek to seal several types of information. First, Defendant and Intel
assert that some of the information contains competitively and commercially sensitive information
about “Intel’s internal product development processes and systems and how Intel evaluates and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

tests its cable modem products such as the Puma 6 chipset,” ECF No. 65-1 at ¶ 3, or about

12

Defendant’s internal processes, systems, testing, and engineering structures, ECF No. 65 at 5.

13

Defendant and Intel also contend that the “information provides insights into Intel’s hardware and

14

software architecture for the Puma 6 chipset and other cable modem products. Intel considers that

15

technical information to be a trade secret and limits access to that information even within the

16

company to those that have a need to know.” Id. Intel contends that release of such information

17

would cause competitive harm to Intel and could also allow a third party to create security threats

18

to users of the Puma 6 chipset. Id. ¶ 4. Intel argues that “[i]f Intel’s internal improvement efforts

19

were to become public, third-party competitors would be able to use Intel’s own internal analysis,

20

which they ordinarily would not be able to access, to disparage Intel’s Puma 6 chipset and spread

21

fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace relating to the Puma 6 chipset and latency issues

22

that Intel identified and already resolved.” Id. ¶ 5.

23

The Court has previously recognized that avoiding competitive harm from the disclosure

24

of confidential product development information is a compelling reason to seal such information.

25

See Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2012 WL 892427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012); see

26

also Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2017 WL 6043303, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28,

27
28

4
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2017) (finding that disclosure of internal assessments of products and development strategies

2

would result in competitive harm and thus that the information is sealable); Apple Inc. v. Samsung

3

Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (same). To the extent that the

4

parties’ request is narrowly tailored to protect information about product development processes or

5

systems or information that would create security threats, the Court finds that Defendant and Intel

6

have met the compelling reasons standard. Where the parties’ request goes beyond such

7

information and simply reflects generally that Defendant and Intel were aware of a problem and

8

were working to resolve it, the Court finds sealing inappropriate.

9

The second type of information that Defendant seeks to seal is direct consumer
communication with Defendant. See ECF No. 65 at 4. Defendant contends that Defendant has a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

published privacy policy and that, pursuant to that policy, consumers have a reasonable

12

expectation of privacy in their communications with Defendant. Defendant argues that publishing

13

such direct comments “could erode trust and harm [Defendant] in the consumer market.” Id. The

14

Court has previously found that customer complaints “are not confidential, because they are

15

known by third parties—the customers reporting the complaints.” Kowalsky, 2012 WL 892427 at

16

*2 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court has approved the sealing of customers’

17

personal information such as names, addresses, and email addresses. See id. Accordingly, the

18

Court finds that the substance of customer complaints is not sealable, but information that includes

19

a customer’s personal information may be sealed.

20

Third, Defendant and Intel seek to seal information that they contend “could reveal

21

information which could be used for malicious purposes and pose a security threat.” See, e.g., ECF

22

No. 66 at 7. The Court has previously found that detailed information about the technology that a

23

company uses to protect against hacking and other types of attacks, or specific vulnerabilities in

24

that technology, is sealable under the compelling reasons standard. See In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer

25

Data Security Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-2752-LHK, ECF No. 192 at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018);

26

In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25,

27
28

5
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1

2013). However, the Court has found that information about a company’s internal procedures to

2

investigate cybersecurity threats does not pose the same risk, and so is not sealable under the

3

compelling reasons standard. In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-

4

2752-LHK, ECF No. 192 at 5 n.1. Here, with one exception, Defendant and Intel do not

5

adequately explain why the general information contained in the SACC or TACC pose a security

6

threat.

7

Finally, Defendant seeks to seal information about its communications with a third-party
cable provider related to the alleged defect in the modems. See ECF No. 65 at 4-5. Defendant

9

argues that the cable operator’s internal processes and systems, testing, and engineering structures

10

are not publicly known and could cause competitive harm to Defendant, including by chilling and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

potentially harming Defendant’s working relationship with the cable provider. To the extent that

12

the parties’ request is narrowly tailored to protect information about confidential business

13

processes, systems, testing, or engineering structures, the Court finds that Defendant has met the

14

compelling reasons standard. Where the parties’ request goes beyond such information and simply

15

reflects generally that Defendant and the cable operator were aware of a problem and were

16

working to resolve it, the Court finds sealing inappropriate.

17

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59
ECF No. 59
ECF No. 59

Page/Line

Ruling

Page 1/Line 12
Page 15/Lines 18-19
Page 16/Lines 1-9,
11-12

DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
GRANTED as to all of Line 5 and the portion of Line 8
between “packet” and “This”. This information would
cause competitive harm to Intel and Defendant by
providing confidential information about the design of
the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 1-4, 6-7, the remaining portion of
Line 8, 9, 11-12. The information does not reveal
specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design, but rather relates to
Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the alleged
defect that is identified elsewhere in the SACC.
6

Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2
3

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59
ECF No. 59

Page/Line

Ruling

Page 16/Lines 17-19
Page 16/Line 25 Page 17/Line 3

DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
DENIED. Consumer complaints that do not contain the
consumer’s identifying information are not sealable, nor
is the general description of Defendant’s internal
response to the complaint sealable.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
GRANTED as to Line 12 except for the word
“SB6190.” This information would cause competitive
harm to Intel and Defendant by providing confidential
information about the design of the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 8-11 and 13-15. The information
does not reveal specific confidential testing or
development methodology or chip design, but rather
relates to Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the
alleged defect that is identified elsewhere in the SACC.
GRANTED as to Line 19 beginning after “address:”
through the end of the line, Lines 20-21, 28. This
information would cause competitive harm to Defendant
by revealing confidential internal business processes.
DENIED as to Lines 17, 18, and 19 through “address:”.
This information does not reveal specific confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design.
DENIED. This information does not reveal confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design, but
rather relates generally to Defendant and Comcast’s
knowledge of the alleged defect.
GRANTED. This information could cause competitive
harm to a non-party by revealing confidential business
processes.
GRANTED as to Line 8 from “Modem” through the end
of the line and Line 10 from “at” through the end of the
line. This information would cause competitive harm to
Intel and Defendant by providing confidential
information about the design of the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 1-2, 4-6, 9, Line 10 only as to the
language “Times are observed at”, and Lines 12-14.
This information does not reveal specific confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design and
Defendant and Intel have not adequately explained how
its disclosure would cause harm.

4
5

ECF No. 59
ECF No. 59

Page 17/Lines 4-6
Page 17/Lines 8-15

ECF No. 59

Page 17/Lines 1721, 28

ECF No. 59

Page 17/Lines 22-23

ECF No. 59

Page 17/Lines 24-26

ECF No. 59

Page 18/Lines 1-2,
4-6, 8-10, 12-14

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

7
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59

3

Page/Line
Page 19/Lines 5-11,
13-18, 20-25

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF No. 59

Page 21/Lines 9-21

ECF No. 59

Page 22/Lines 1-5

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 9, 10, and 11 from the beginning
of the line through “Comcast.” This information could
harm Comcast by revealing confidential testing
processes.
DENIED as to Lines 5-8, the remainder of Line 11,
Lines 13-18, 20-25. Defendant does not adequately
explain why the disclosure of this information, which
relates generally to engineers troubleshooting a
consumer’s modem performance problems, would cause
competitive harm. In addition, because this information
only identifies the user by the user’s public Reddit
username, the information does not reveal confidential
consumer information. Finally, although Defendant
contends that this information could “reveal information
which could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Line 19 from “latency” through
“ARRIS0470448.” This information references an
internal assessment of the relative market position of
Defendant’s product and so its release could cause
competitive harm.
DENIED as to Lines 9-Line 19 through “latency”, 2021. Defendant and Intel do not adequately explain why
the disclosure of this information, which relates
generally to engineers troubleshooting modem
performance problems, would cause competitive harm.
DENIED. Defendant and Intel do not adequately explain
why the disclosure of this information, which generally
identifies different types of latency affecting the chipset,
would cause competitive harm. Defendant and Intel do
not specify whether some of these latency types are not
publicly known or are not otherwise alleged in the
unredacted portions of the SACC. In addition, although
Defendant contends that this information could “reveal
information which could be used for malicious purposes
and pose a security threat,” Defendant does not
adequately explain which portions of this information
could cause a security threat.

25
26
27
28

8
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59

Page/Line

Ruling

Page 26/Lines 18-24

ECF No. 59

Page 27/Lines 1-26

ECF No. 59

Page 28/Lines 1-5,
6-28

ECF No. 59

Page 29/Lines 1-21

ECF No. 59

Page 30/Lines 1-25

DENIED. Defendant’s contention that this information
reveals a confidential testing method is not persuasive.
Revelation of the fact that Defendant attempted to
replicate a user’s findings using the same testing tool
that the user employed is unlikely to cause competitive
harm. In addition, although Defendant contends that this
information could “reveal information which could be
used for malicious purposes and pose a security threat,”
Defendant does not adequately explain which portions
of this information could cause a security threat.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.
GRANTED as to Line 2 between “Arris” and the end of
the line, Lines 3-4, Line 7 between “being” and the end
of the line, Lines 8-13, and 16-28. This information
reveals specific data resulting from Defendant’s internal
testing, which could cause competitive harm if
disclosed.
DENIED as to Line 1, Line 2 from the beginning of the
line through “Arris”, Lines, 6, and 14-15. This
information does not reveal specific test results or
confidential methods. In addition, although Defendant
contends that this information could “reveal information
which could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.

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
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59

3

Page/Line
Page 31/Lines 2-3,
5-28

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ECF No. 59

Page 32/Lines 2-7,
10-27

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 21-28. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential testing information,
including Defendant’s assessment of the results of the
tests.
DENIED as to Lines 2-3, 5-20. This information does
not reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Line 13 between “users” and the end
of the line, Lines 14-22. This information reveals
specific data resulting from Intel’s internal testing,
which could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
DENIED as to Lines 2-Line 13 from the beginning of
the line through “users”. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59

Page/Line
Page 33/Lines 1-27

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ECF No. 59

Page 34/Lines 6, 825

ECF No. 59

Page 35/Lines 1-19

ECF No. 59

Page 36/Lines 5-24

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

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 8-16. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential testing information,
including Defendant’s assessment of the results of the
tests, as opposed to only the data.
DENIED as to Lines 1-7, 18-27. This information does
not reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Lines 12-18, line 20 beginning after
“designed to” through the end of the line, and Lines 2125. The disclosure of this information could cause
Defendant and Intel competitive harm because it reveals
confidential testing information and methods, including
Intel’s assessment of the results of the tests.
DENIED as to Lines 6, 8-11, 19, and 20 from the
beginning of the line through “designed to.” This
information does not reveal specific confidential testing
or development methodology or chip design and
Defendant and Intel have not adequately explained how
its disclosure would cause harm.
GRANTED. The disclosure of this information could
cause Defendant and Intel competitive harm because it
reveals confidential testing information and methods,
including Intel’s assessment of the results of the tests.
GRANTED as to Lines 5-21. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant and Intel
competitive harm because it reveals confidential testing
information and methods, including Intel’s assessment
of the results of the tests.
DENIED as to Lines 22-24. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm.

26
27
28

11
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 59

3

Page/Line
Page 37/Lines 3-7,
22-25, 27-28

4
5
6
7
8

ECF No. 59

Page 38/Lines 1-18

ECF No. 59

Page 39/Lines 7-8,
12-14, 16-28

ECF No. 59

Page 40/Lines 1-12,
14-16

ECF No. 60
ECF No. 60
ECF No. 60

Page 1/Line 12
Page 17/Lines 18-19
Page 18/Lines 1-9,
11-12

ECF No. 60

Page 18/Lines 17-19

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

Ruling
GRANTED as to Line 23 beginning after
“vulnerability” through the end of Line 28. The
disclosure of this information could cause Defendant
and Intel competitive harm because it reveals
confidential efforts to address a security vulnerability,
the disclosure of which could pose a security threat.
DENIED as to Lines 3-7, 22, and Line 23 through the
word “vulnerability.” This information is publicly
available, as demonstrated by Lines 8-21 of the same
page, which the parties do not seek to seal.
GRANTED as to Lines 9-18. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant and Intel and a third
party competitive harm because it reveals confidential
testing information and assessments of customer
relations.
DENIED as to Lines 1-8. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm.
DENIED. This information appears to be publicly
available on Comcast’s own user forums, as well as
other public forums.
GRANTED as to Lines 1-3. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential marketing judgments.
DENIED as to Lines 5-16. This information is publicly
available on Comcast’s own user forums, as well as
other public forums.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
GRANTED as to all of Line 5 and the portion of Line 8
between “packet” and “This”. This information would
cause competitive harm to Intel and Defendant by
providing confidential information about the design of
the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 1-4, 6-7, the remaining portion of
Line 8, 9, 11-12. The information does not reveal
specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design, but rather relates to
Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the alleged
defect that is identified elsewhere in the SACC.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.

27
28

12
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

3
4

Page/Line
Page 18/Line 25Page 19/Line 3

Page 19/Lines 4-6
Page 19/Lines 8-15

ECF No. 60

Page 19/Lines 1721, 28

ECF No. 60

Page 19/Lines 22-23

ECF No. 60

5

ECF No. 60
ECF No. 60

Page 19/Lines 24-26

ECF No. 60

Page 20/Lines 1-2,
4-6, 8-10, 12-14

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

Ruling
DENIED. Consumer complaints that do not contain the
consumer’s identifying information are not sealable, nor
is the general description of Defendant’s internal
response to the complaint.
DENIED. Defendant has no objection to unsealing.
GRANTED as to Line 12 except for the word
“SB6190.” This information would cause competitive
harm to Intel and Defendant by providing confidential
information about the design of the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 8-11 and 13-15. The information
does not reveal specific confidential testing or
development methodology or chip design, but rather
relates to Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the
alleged defect that is identified elsewhere in the SACC.
GRANTED as to Line 19 beginning after “address:”
through the end of the line, Lines 20-21, 28. This
information would cause competitive harm to Defendant
by revealing confidential internal business processes.
DENIED as to Lines 17, 18, and 19 through “address:”.
This information does not reveal specific confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design.
DENIED. This information does not reveal confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design, but
rather relates generally to Defendant and Comcast’s
knowledge of the alleged defect.
GRANTED. This information could cause competitive
harm to a non-party by revealing confidential business
processes.
GRANTED as to Line 8 from “Modem” through the end
of the line and Line 10 from “at” through the end of the
line. This information would cause competitive harm to
Intel and Defendant by providing confidential
information about the design of the chip.
DENIED as to Lines 1-2, 4-6, 9, Line 10 only as to the
language “Times are observed at”, and Lines 12-14.
This information does not reveal specific confidential
testing or development methodology or chip design and
Defendant and Intel have not adequately explained how
its disclosure would cause harm.

25
26
27
28

13
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

3

Page/Line
Page 21/Lines 5-11,
13-18, 20-25

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF No. 60

Page 23/Lines 9-21

ECF No. 60

Page 24/Lines 1-5

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 9, 10, and 11 from the beginning
of the line through “Comcast.” This information could
harm Comcast by revealing confidential testing
processes.
DENIED as to Lines 5-8, the remainder of Line 11,
Lines 13-18, 20-25. Defendant does not adequately
explain why the disclosure of this information, which
relates generally to engineers troubleshooting a
consumer’s modem performance problems, would cause
competitive harm. In addition, because this information
only identifies the user by the user’s public Reddit
username, the information does not reveal confidential
consumer information. Finally, although Defendant
contends that this information could “reveal information
which could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Line 19 from “latency” through
“ARRIS0470448.” This information references an
internal assessment of the relative market position of
Defendant’s product and so its release could cause
competitive harm.
DENIED as to Lines 9-Line 19 through “latency”, 2021. Defendant and Intel do not adequately explain why
the disclosure of this information, which relates
generally to engineers troubleshooting modem
performance problems, would cause competitive harm.
DENIED. Defendant and Intel do not adequately explain
why the disclosure of this information, which generally
identifies different types of latency affecting the chipset,
would cause competitive harm. Defendant and Intel do
not specify whether some of these latency types are not
publicly known or are not otherwise alleged in the
unredacted portions of the SACC. In addition, although
Defendant contends that this information could “reveal
information which could be used for malicious purposes
and pose a security threat,” Defendant does not
adequately explain which portions of this information
could cause a security threat.

25
26
27
28

14
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

Page/Line

Ruling

Page 28/Lines 18-24

ECF No. 60

Page 29/Lines 1-26

ECF No. 60

Page 30/Lines 1-28

ECF No. 60

Page 31/Lines 1-21

ECF No. 60

Page 32/Lines 1-25

DENIED. Defendant’s contention that this information
reveals a confidential testing method is not persuasive.
Revelation of the fact that Defendant attempted to
replicate a user’s findings using the same testing tool
that the user employed is unlikely to cause competitive
harm. In addition, although Defendant contends that this
information could “reveal information which could be
used for malicious purposes and pose a security threat,”
Defendant does not adequately explain which portions
of this information could cause a security threat.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.
GRANTED as to Line 2 between “Arris” and the end of
the line, Lines 3-4, Line 7 between “being” and the end
of the line, Lines 8-13, and 16-28. This information
reveals specific data resulting from Defendant’s internal
testing, which could cause competitive harm if
disclosed.
DENIED as to Line 1, Line 2 from the beginning of the
line through “Arris”, Lines, 6, and 14-15. This
information does not reveal specific test results or
confidential methods. In addition, although Defendant
contends that this information could “reveal information
which could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.
GRANTED. This information reveals specific data
resulting from Defendant’s internal testing, which could
cause competitive harm if disclosed.

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
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

3

Page/Line
Page 33/Lines 2-3,
5-28

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ECF No. 60

Page 34/Lines 2-7,
10-27

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 21-28. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential testing information,
including Defendant’s assessment of the results of the
tests, as opposed to the pure data.
DENIED as to Lines 2-3, 5-20. This information does
not reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Line 13 between “users” and the end
of the line, Lines 14-22. This information reveals
specific data resulting from Intel’s internal testing,
which could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
DENIED as to Lines 2-Line 13 from the beginning of
the line through “users”. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

Page/Line
Page 35/Lines 1-27

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ECF No. 60

Page 36/Lines 6, 825

ECF No. 60

Page 37/Lines 1-19

ECF No. 60

Page 38/Lines 5-24

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

Ruling
GRANTED as to Lines 8-16. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential testing information,
including Defendant’s assessment of the results of the
tests, as opposed to the pure data.
DENIED as to Lines 1-7, 18-27. This information does
not reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm. In addition, although Defendant contends
that this information could “reveal information which
could be used for malicious purposes and pose a
security threat,” Defendant does not adequately explain
which portions of this information could cause a
security threat.
GRANTED as to Lines 12-18, line 20 beginning after
“to,” Lines 21-25. The disclosure of this information
could cause Defendant and Intel competitive harm
because it reveals confidential testing information and
methods, including Intel’s assessment of the results of
the tests.
DENIED as to Lines 6, 8-11, 19, and 20 from the
beginning of the line through “designed to.” This
information does not reveal specific confidential testing
or development methodology or chip design and
Defendant and Intel have not adequately explained how
its disclosure would cause harm.
GRANTED. The disclosure of this information could
cause Defendant and Intel competitive harm because it
reveals confidential testing information and methods,
including Intel’s assessment of the results of the tests.
GRANTED as to Lines 5-21. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant and Intel
competitive harm because it reveals confidential testing
information and methods, including Intel’s assessment
of the results of the tests.
DENIED as to Lines 22-24. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm.

26
27
28

17
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

Motion to
Seal
ECF No. 60

3

Page/Line
Page 39/Lines 3-7,
22-25, 27-28

4
5
6
7
8

ECF No. 60

Page 40/Lines 1-18

ECF No. 60

Page 41/Lines 7-8,
12-14, 16-28

ECF No. 60

Page 42/Lines 1-12,
14-16

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Ruling
GRANTED as to Line 23 beginning after
“vulnerability” through the end of Line 28. The
disclosure of this information could cause Defendant
and Intel competitive harm because it reveals
confidential efforts to address a security vulnerability,
the disclosure of which could pose a security threat.
DENIED as to Lines 3-7, 22, and Line 23 through the
word “vulnerability.” This information is publicly
available, as demonstrated by Lines 8-21 of the same
page, which the parties do not seek to seal.
GRANTED as to Lines 9-18. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant and Intel and a third
party competitive harm because it reveals confidential
testing information and assessments of customer
relations.
DENIED as to Lines 1-8. This information does not
reveal specific confidential testing or development
methodology or chip design and Defendant and Intel
have not adequately explained how its disclosure would
cause harm.
DENIED. This information appears to be publicly
available on Comcast’s own user forums, as well as
other public forums.
GRANTED as to Lines 1-3. The disclosure of this
information could cause Defendant competitive harm
because it reveals confidential marketing judgments.
DENIED as to Lines 5-16. This information appears to
be publicly available on Comcast’s own user forums, as
well as other public forums.

19

Thus, Plaintiffs’ administrative motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN PART and

20

DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Plaintiffs shall refile redacted and

21

unredacted versions of the SACC and TACC that comply with the above rulings within 7 days of

22

the date of this order.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: March 20, 2018

25
26

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28

18
Case No. 17-CV-01834-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS