e.Digital Corporation v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying without prejudice 33 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. If Defendants desire the Court to consider their motion for judgment on the pleadings, they must comply with this order no later than July 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 7/8/2013. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

e.DIGITAL CORPORATION,

12

Case No. 13cv781 DMS (WVG)
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

vs.
13
14

RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED dba
BLACKBERRY et al.,,

15

Defendants;
____________________________________

16
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
17
18

In this patent infringement action Defendants seek to file under seal the entirety of their

19

motion for judgment on the pleadings. The request is based on Defendants’ desire to keep confidential

20

a redacted version of a 2009 Patent Cross License and Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and

21

a third party, Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions

22

insofar as it contains proprietary information regarding the Z10 Smartphone, and the declaration of

23

Kent W. Serrat, which allegedly contains confidential business information.

24

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public records and

25

documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S.

26

589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to seal therefore does not automatically

27

resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003).

28

A party requesting to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion "must show that

-1-

1

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings'" outweigh the strong presumption of

2

access to judicial records, which favors disclosure. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

3

(9th Cir. 2010), quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

4

2006). “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning”

5

are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

6

The motion is based on the contention that some of the information it discloses contains trade

7

secrets and/or that the disclosure of certain confidential information may cause irreparable harm to

8

Plaintiff or a third party. While Defendants’ premises appears to be valid, they have failed to make

9

the appropriate showing why the entirety of their motion and exhibits should be sealed, particularly

10

when the motion is intended to address the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations. No attempt has been

11

made to identify any particular part of the filing, which exceeds 100 pages. Although some portion

12

of the filing may be shown to rise to the compelling reasons standard, sealing of the entire filing would

13

not be warranted.

14

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied. The filing, which was lodged under seal in

15

its entirety, will not be considered. The motion is denied without prejudice to filing another motion

16

to seal only those portions of the motion for which an appropriate specific showing is made. The

17

Court is not inclined to seal the motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety. If Defendants

18

desire the Court to consider their motion for judgment on the pleadings,1 they must comply with this

19

order no later than July 10, 2013.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: July 8, 2013

23
HON. DANA M. SABRAW
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
1

28

Defendants are reminded that their filings must comply with Civil Local Rules of this
District, including the legibility requirements of Rule 5.1(a). The proposed briefs in support of motion
for judgment on the pleadings do not comply.
-2-