VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 691

ORDER GRANTING 653 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/26/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2023)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
[Re: ECF No. 653]

12

Before the Court is VLSI Technology’s (“VLSI”) Administrative Motion to Consider

13
14

Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed regarding its Motion for Relief from

15

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 652). For the reasons described

16

below, the motion is GRANTED.

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2023, VLSI filed a Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order

19

of Magistrate Judge (“Motion for Relief”). ECF No. 652. On the same day, VLSI filed an

20

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

21

(“Administrative Motion”) in connection with the Motion for Relief. ECF No. 653. On

22

September 20, 2023, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a declaration and exhibits in support of

23

VLSI’s Administrative Motion. ECF Nos. 665, 666.

24
25

II.

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

26

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

27

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

28

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

III.

The document at issue, VLSI’s Motion for Relief, is related to a motion to strike VLSI’s

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

9

expert opinions related to available damages for the alleged infringement. These issues are “more

10

than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore Intel must provide “compelling

11

reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see

12

also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D.

13

Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).
Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from VLSI’s Motion for Relief. Intel explains that

14
15

“[d]isclosure of information regarding Intel’s financial decisions and Intel’s marketing research

16

and strategies (e.g., Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s customers value,

17

the potential price premiums associated with those features and how Intel expects certain features

18

to affect the sales of certain products) would provide competitors and potential counterparties with

19

unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” ECF No. 665 ¶ 6. Intel

20

further argues, “[b]ecause of the highly confidential nature of the information Intel seeks to seal

21

and the potential harm that Intel could suffer in competition with other manufacturers, there is no

22

less restrictive alternative to sealing the requested information.” Id. ¶ 9.

23

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

24

document. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812,

25

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

26

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

27

also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

28

\\
2

1
2
3

ECF or
Document
Exhibit No.
ECF No. 652 VLSI’s Motion
for Relief

4
5
6
7

IV.

Portion(s)
to Seal
Green
highlighted
portions

Ruling
Granted, as green highlighted portions reveal
Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what
features Intel’s customers value, the potential
price premiums associated with those features,
and how Intel expects certain features to affect
the sales of certain products. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 8

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: September 26, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3