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

Filing 651

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 632 and 646 Motions to Seal. Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall file on the public docket redacted versions of the joint proposed pretrial order and the amended joint prop osed pretrial order. Plaintiff shall redact the confidential information contained in Proposed Fact No. 14 in Part III and Nos. 11-15 in Part V. Plaintiff shall not redact the information designated as confidential by AE Tech. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/12/2014. (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 MOTIONS TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 632, 646)

16

Pending before the Court are two motions to seal filed by Plaintiff related to the joint proposed

17

pretrial order (“JPTO”) and the amended joint proposed pretrial order (“amended JPTO”). See Docket

18

No. 632, 646. The motions to seal seek redaction of information designated as confidential by Plaintiff

19

and information designated as confidential by Defendant AE Tech Co. (“AE Tech”). Both motions were

20

served on AE Tech. See Docket Nos. 644, 648. AE Tech did not submit any declaration in support of

21

the motions to redact the information it designated as confidential. The Court finds the pending motions

22

to seal properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more

23

fully below, the motions to seal are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

24

I.

STANDARDS

25

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

26

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

27

Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana

28

v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

1

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal bears the burden

2

of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

3

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents

4

attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’

5

support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

6

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

7

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

8

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process).1

9

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

10

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become

11

a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

12

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing

13

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also Apple, 727 F.3d at 1221-22

14

(discussing competitive harm to business and the definition of “trade secret” adopted by the Ninth

15

Circuit). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

16

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court

17

to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

18

A party’s burden to show compelling reasons for sealing is not met by general assertions that the

19

information is “confidential” or a “trade secret,” but rather the movant must “articulate compelling

20

reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. at 1178. The Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected

21

efforts to seal documents under the “compelling reasons” standard where the movant makes “conclusory

22

statements about the contents of the documents–that they are confidential and that, in general,” their

23

disclosure would be harmful to the movant. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182; see also Vaccine Ctr. LLC

24
25
1

26
27
28

To the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful
information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing
entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137; see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting
the sensitive material”)
2

1

v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 68298, *5-6 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013) (finding insufficient

2

general assertions regarding confidential nature of documents). Such “conclusory offerings do not rise

3

to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.”

4

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. In allowing the sealing of a document, the Court must base its decision

5

on a compelling reason and must “articulate the basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis and

6

conjecture.” See, e.g., Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

7

Cir. 1995)).

8

II.

ANALYSIS

9

As noted above, the motions to seal seek redaction of some information designated as

10

confidential by Plaintiff and some designated as confidential by AE Tech. The Court will address the

11

information in turn below.

12

A.

Plaintiff’s Information

13

Plaintiff argues that compelling reasons exist for redacting information in Proposed Fact No. 14

14

in Part III and Nos. 11-15 in Part V of the JPTO and amended JPTO. See Docket No. 632 at 4-6; Docket

15

No. 646 at 4.2 Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Jonathan Lin in asserting that this type of

16

information is confidential and proprietary, and qualifies as a trade secret. See, e.g., Docket No. 646 at

17

4 (relying on declaration at Docket No. 507). For example, Plaintiff points to sales, manufacturing, and

18

customer information. See, e.g., id. Mr. Lin also explains that Plaintiff keeps the cited information

19

confidential and that its disclosure would be competitive disadvantageous. See, e.g., id. Plaintiff also

20

points to the Court’s previous order sealing such information from the Cox Report. See Docket No. 511

21

at 3. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal this information that overcome the public’s

22

interest in access. Accordingly, as to the above information, the motions to seal are GRANTED.

23

B.

AE Tech’s Information

24

The balance of the information at issue in the motions to seal was designated as confidential by

25

AE Tech. When the sole reason for seeking to seal information is that the opposing party has designated

26
27
28

2

The portions of the JPTO and amended JPTO for which redaction is sought are identical. See
Docket No. 646 at 2.
3

1

it as confidential, this Court has instructed that the designating party must submit a declaration

2

supporting the sealing request. See, e.g., Docket No. 334. The Court has made clear that the failure to

3

file such a declaration may result in the Court ordering the information to be made public. See, e.g., id.

4

The pending motions were both served on AE Tech, Docket Nos. 644, 648, but it failed to submit a

5

declaration in support of them. Accordingly, the motions to seal are DENIED with respect to the

6

information designated as confidential by AE Tech.

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons outlined above, the motions to seal are hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED

9

in part. Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall file on the public docket redacted

10

versions of the joint proposed pretrial order and the amended joint proposed pretrial order. Plaintiff

11

shall redact the confidential information contained in Proposed Fact No. 14 in Part III and Nos. 11-15

12

in Part V. Plaintiff shall not redact the information designated as confidential by AE Tech.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: November 12, 2014

15
16

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4