AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 605

ORDER granting in part and denying in part as moot 589 Motion to Seal. Exhibit A 591 is DENIED as moot. Exhibit B 591 is DENIED as moot. Exhibit C 591 is GRANTED as to the proposed redactions to Exhibit C. Exhibit D 591 is GRANTED as to the proposed redactions to Exhibit D. Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Withdraw 590 is GRANTED as to the proposed redactions to Plaintiff's response to the motion to withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/26/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
AEVOE CORP.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AE TECH. CO., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 589)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Docket No. 589. Because the sole ground

17

for the motion to seal is that Defendants designated the underlying information as confidential pursuant

18

to the blanket stipulated protective order, Defendants filed a response in partial support of the motion

19

to seal. Docket No. 594. The Court finds this motion properly decided without oral argument. See

20

Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is hereby GRANTED in part

21

and DENIED as moot in part.

22

In determining whether documents should be sealed in patent cases, the Court applies Ninth

23

Circuit law. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Ninth

24

Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records, and that parties

25

seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must make a

26

particularized showing of “good cause” to overcome the presumption of public access. See Kamakana

27

v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech.

28

Co., 2013 WL 2302310, *1 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013). To the extent any confidential information can be

1

easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order that

2

redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

3

331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon,

4

661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the

5

sensitive material”).

6

Exhibit A (Docket No. 591): This exhibit consists of excerpts from the deposition of Angie Fan.

7

Defendants designated that transcript as highly confidential - attorneys’ eyes only, but have now

8

indicated that they have no objection to it being filed publicly. See Docket No. 594 at 2. To that end,

9

Defendants publicly filed the transcript. See Docket No. 594-1. Accordingly, with respect to Exhibit

10

A, the motion to seal is DENIED as moot.

11

Exhibit B (Docket No. 591): This exhibit consists of excerpts from the deposition of Tom Hsieh.

12

Defendants designated that transcript as highly confidential - attorneys’ eyes only, but have now

13

indicated that they have no objection to it being filed publicly. See Docket No. 594 at 2. To that end,

14

Defendants publicly filed the transcript. See Docket No. 594-2. Accordingly, with respect to Exhibit

15

B, the motion to seal is DENIED as moot.

16

Exhibit C (Docket No. 591): This exhibit consists of excerpts from the deposition of Henry

17

Hsieh. Defendants designated that transcript as highly confidential - attorneys’ eyes only. Defendants

18

now seek only limited redactions to the transcript, and have publicly filed a redacted version on the

19

docket. See Docket No. 594-3. In particular, Defendants seek redaction of customer and sales

20

information. The Court finds such redaction is proper. See, e.g., Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., 2013 WL

21

6210648, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2013). Accordingly, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED as to the

22

proposed redactions to Exhibit C.

23

Exhibit D (Docket No. 591): This exhibit consist of excerpts from the deposition of Henry

24

Hsieh. Defendants designated that transcript as highly confidential - attorneys’ eyes only. Defendants

25

now seek only limited redactions to the transcript, and have publicly filed a redacted version on the

26

docket. See Docket No. 594-4. In particular, Defendants seek redaction of customer information. The

27

Court finds such redaction is proper. See, e.g., Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., 2013 WL 6210648, *2 (D.

28
2

1

Nev. Nov. 27, 2013). Accordingly, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED as to the proposed

2

redactions to Exhibit D.

3

Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Withdraw (Docket No. 590): Plaintiff filed its response to

4

Buchanan Ingersoll’s motion to withdraw with certain proposed redactions. See Docket No. 586 at 6-7;

5

see also Docket No. 590 at 6-7. The redacted information relates to the financial relationship between

6

Defendant AE Tech and certain of its agents and other companies. In short, the redacted information

7

relates to Plaintiff’s assertion that AE Tech is involved in an “elaborate shell game.” Defendants seek

8

to keep the redacted information secret, arguing that it constitutes financial information that merits

9

secrecy. See Docket No. 594 at 3. Although Defendants’ showing is less developed with respect to this

10

information, the Court finds that good cause exists to maintain the secrecy of this information.1

11

Accordingly, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED as to the proposed redactions to Plaintiff’s

12

response to the motion to withdraw.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: August 26, 2014

15
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

Of course, this order applies the “good cause” standard and nothing herein should be construed
as expressing any opinion as to any later motion to seal this information in connection with a dispositive
motion in which the “compelling reasons” standard applies.
3