VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 912

ORDER GRANTING 902 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/24/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

v.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11

Defendant.

12

[Re: ECF No. 902]

Before the court is VLSI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 902. This

13

motion is related to a previous motion, ECF No. 512, which the Court denied because VLSI’s

14

request was not narrowly tailored. ECF No. 894. For the reasons described below, the

15

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

DISCUSSION
VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because disclosure “could cause

13

significant competitive and business harms to VLSI.” ECF No. 902 at 5. VLSI argues that the

14

portions are narrowly tailored. Id.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.

20

The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

21
22
23
24
25

ECF or Exhibit
No.
ECF No. 512
Ex. 7 to VLSI’s
Supplemental
Briefs

Document

Portion(s) to Seal

Ruling

Excerpts of the
April 20, 2023
Opening Report
of Mark
Chandler

Blue-boxed
portions at ¶¶ 359,
363–65, 387, 395–
96, 402, 414, 422,
427, 442– 43, 465,
495, 522–23

Granted, as the blue-boxed portions
reflect highly-confidential licenses
produced in this case, including royalty
rates and licensing terms. ECF No.
902-1 ¶¶ 9–11. Disclosure of this
information could cause significant
competitive and business harms to
VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to
Intel and other potential license
counterparties. See ECF No. 902-1 ¶¶
13–17.

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

Ex. 8 to VLSI’s Excerpts of the
Supplemental
May 16, 2023
Briefs
Supplemental
Report of Dr.
William
MangioneSmith

Blue-boxed
portions at ¶ 438.

5
6
7
8
9

III.

Granted, as the blue-boxed portions
reflect VLSI’s highly-confidential and
proprietary damages analysis for the
’922 Patent Wen Decl. ¶¶ 9–10. Public
disclosure of this information could
cause significant competitive and
business harms to VLSI, as well as
unfair advantage to Intel and other
potential license counterparties. See
ECF No. 902-1 ¶¶ 12– 17.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that VLSI’s administrative motion

is granted.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: April 24, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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