VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 659

ORDER GRANTING 584 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS ( 581 , 582 , 583 , 585 ) TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/18/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2023)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

v.

10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11

Defendant.

12
13

16
17

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED; DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
[Re: ECF Nos. 581, 582, 583, 584, 585]

14
15

Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

Before the Court are five administrative motions filed by Intel Corporation (“Intel”)
regarding its Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits (ECF No. 580):
1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

18

Sealed in Connection with Intel's Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and

19

Exhibits 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23. ECF No. 581.

20

2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

21

Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 1 and 10 to Intel's Omnibus Motion for Summary

22

Judgment. ECF No. 582.

23

3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

24

Sealed in Connection with Intel's Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and

25

Exhibits 25-33 Thereto. ECF No. 583.

26

4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

27

Sealed in Connection Intel's Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 24,

28

34, 36, 37, and 38 Thereto. ECF No. 584.

1

5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

2

Sealed in Connection with Exhibits 17, 18, and 20 of Intel's Omnibus Motion for

3

Summary Judgment. ECF No. 585.

4

For the reasons described below, the Administrative Motion, ECF No. 584, is GRANTED and the

5

remaining motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

I.

BACKGROUND

7

Intel filed its Notice of Motion and Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”)

8

on August 24, 2023. ECF No. 580. That same day, Intel filed an Administrative Motion to File

9

Under Seal regarding Intel’s information in the Motion (ECF No. 579), which the Court granted

10

(ECF No. 637), and five Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party's Material

11

Should Be Sealed. ECF Nos. 581-585. The Parties with information at issue are Plaintiff VLSI

12

Technology LLC (“VLSI”) (ECF No. 581), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) (ECF No. 582),

13

Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”) (ECF No. 583), Finjan Software, Inc. and Finjan, Inc.

14

(collectively “Finjan”) (ECF No. 584), NXP B.V. (“NXP”) (ECF No. 585). On September 1,

15

2023, Intel certified that it served the non-parties associated with ECF Nos. 582, 583, and 584.

16

ECF No. 610. Intel further certified that NXP was served by Plaintiff. Id. The only party to file a

17

response was Finjan, who sought to have a short excerpt from the Motion for Summary Judgment

18

redacted. ECF No. 611.

19
20

II.

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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

24

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

25

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

26

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

27

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

28

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

2

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

3

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

4

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

5

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

6

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal

7

the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule

8

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard

9

requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

10

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

12

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins.

13

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

III.

DISCUSSION

15

A.

16

Finjan seeks to seal two lines in Intel’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 617 ¶ 5.

17

Finjan argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal “given the sensitive

18

financial and business information contained in the non-public portions of the [agreement at

19

issue]”. Id. Finjan further explains that “the confidential terms in the [agreement at issue],

20

including the compensation terms, patents licensed, and other substantive provisions, are

21

maintained as highly confidential within Finjan to only those with a need to know, and may be

22

disclosed in litigation only when relevant and under the highest level of confidentiality. Finjan has

23

consistently taken and continues to take substantial measures within the company to maintain the

24

confidentiality of terms discussed in the [agreement at issue] and to prevent this type of

25

confidential business information from being made public, including in all its past and pending

26

litigations.” Id. ¶ 5.

ECF No. 584

27

The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the

28

document. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL
3

1

2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business

2

information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.).

3

The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.

4

B.

5

VLSI (ECF No. 581), Microsoft (ECF No. 582), Fortress (ECF No. 583), and NXP (ECF

6

No. 585) did not respond with proposed sealing or redactions; therefore, these motions are denied.

7

IV.

ORDER

8

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ECF Nos. 581, 582, 583, and 585

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Sealed (ECF No. 581) is DENIED.
2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed (ECF No. 582) is DENIED.
3. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed (ECF No. 583) is DENIED.
4. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed (ECF No. 584) is GRANTED.
5. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed (ECF No. 585) is DENIED.
Intel SHALL file public redacted versions of the corresponding motion and exhibits,

20

subject to this and the Court’s other orders (e.g., ECF No. 579) according to the Parties’ agreed

21

upon schedule (ECF No. 607).

22
23
24
25

Dated: September 18, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
4