ClearOne Communications v. Chiang et al

Filing 2505

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: Sealed Docket Entries, granting 2258 Motion for Access; granting 2280 Motion for Access; finding as moot 2281 Motion to Expedite; granting 2340 Motion for Clarification; granting 2373 Motion for Joinder; granting 2454 Motion for Disclosure; granting in part 2463 Motion for Access. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Nuffer on 6/13/11 (alt)

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Utah corporation,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION and
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS RELATED
TO SEALED DOCKET ENTRIES
Civil No. 2:07-cv-037 TC-DN

v.
ANDREW CHIANG, an individual, JUN
YANG, an individual, LONNY BOWERS, an
individual, WIDEBAND SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a Massachusetts corporation, VERSATILE
DSP, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, and
BIAMP SYSTEMS CORPORATION, an
Oregon corporation,

District Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.
WideBand Defendants,1 Biamp Systems Corporation (Biamp) and Interested Party
Donald Bowers have made various requests to access the sealed docket entries in this case.2
Many “court user only” entries have not appeared on the public docket because they are
administrative in nature (such as information on service by mail or email, transcript orders, or
notes about docket corrections), make the public docket harder to read, and result in added
PACER charges for persons downloading the public docket. On November 3, 2010, the

1

The WideBand Defendants are Defendants Lonny Bowers, Andrew Chiang, Jun Yang, WideBand Solutions, Inc.,
and Versatile DSP, Inc., collectively.
2

See Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc.’s Emergency Motion for Access to Docket Items and Protection for
Information Protected by the Common-Interest and /or Joint-Defense Privileges, docket no. 2258, filed Sept. 10,
2010; WideBand Defendants’ and Interested Non-Party Litigants/ Emergency Motion for Access to Docket Items
and Protection for Information Protected by the Common Interest, Work Product and/or Joint Defense Privileges,
docket no. 2280, filed Sept. 24, 2010; Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc.’s Motion for Clarification Regarding Order
Regarding Sealed Documents [Docket No. 2339] (Motion for Clarification), docket no. 2340, filed Nov. 11, 2010;
Emergency Motion for Access to “Court Only User Docket” (Motion for Access 2454), docket no. 2454, filed Mar.
3, 2011; Emergency Motion for Access to “Court Only User Docket” (Motion for Access 2463), docket no. 2463,
filed Mar. 11, 2011.

magistrate judge issued an order3 explaining that some documents related to the Seizure Order4
were filed under seal because they contained information protected under the Confidentiality
Order5 and that later, redacted versions of the sealed documents were filed. The order went on
to unseal other sealed docket entries and documents related to the Seizure Order.6
Subsequently, Biamp moved for clarification of the Order Regarding Sealed Documents
seeking to gain access to all past docket entries and all docket entries “on a go-forward basis.”7
The magistrate judge took the motion for clarification under advisement and emailed a print-out
of the entries listed in Biamp’s motion “to counsel for the parties who have access to attorneys'
eyes only information.”8 After reviewing this information, Biamp filed a supplemental
memorandum asking the court to “fully populate the docket in this case.”9 Plaintiff ClearOne
objects to fully populating the docket entries because many of “the docket entries indicate that
the underlying documents contain information protected by the Confidentiality Order in this
case.”10 But ClearOne states that it “has no objection to Biamp having access to these docket

3

Order Regarding Sealed Documents, docket no. 2339, filed Nov. 3, 2010.

4

Seizure Order, docket no. 2251, filed under seal Sept. 1, 2010; docket no. 2306, redacted version filed Oct. 8,
2010.
5

Confidentiality Order, docket no. 74, filed Mar. 9, 2007.

6

See Order Regarding Sealed Documents at 3.

7

Motion for Clarification at 3.

8

Docket Text Order, docket no. 2426, filed Feb. 11, 2011; see also Memorandum Decision and Order Granting
Motion for Protective Order, docket 1923, filed Sept. 14, 2009 (denying Attorney Frails access to protected
information).
9

Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc.’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its Motions for Access to Missing
Docket Items and Pursuant to Docket Order 2426 (Supplemental Memo) at 2, docket no. 2444, filed under seal on
Feb. 25, 2011.

10

Response to Biamp Systems Corporation’s Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to Docket Text Order No. 2426
(Response) at 2, docket no. 2459, filed Mar. 8, 2011 (citing Confidentiality Order, docket no. 74).

2

entries under a “Highly Confidential” or “attorneys’ eyes only” designation – if the Court deems
it appropriate.”11
Biamp argues that the docket entries must be unsealed because “in even those limited
situations where secrecy [of docket entries] has been permitted, a showing of absolute ‘compelling
reasons’ for the secrecy is required.”12 Many of the documents in this case are sealed for
“compelling reasons” because they contain protected, proprietary or trade secret information.13 But

according to the authority Biamp cites, the “compelling reasons” standard only applies to entries
and documents that are related to dispositive motions, while a “good cause” showing is sufficient
to seal other documents under Rule 26(c).14 The Kamakana court stated that it had previously
reasoned “that when a district court grants a protective order to seal documents during discovery,
‘it already has determined that “good cause” exists to protect this information from being
disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
confidentiality.’”15 There was “good cause” to seal the documents in this case that were filed
under the confidentiality order.
Yet, after a complete review of the docket in this case,16 the magistrate judge finds that making
all the docket entries public would not reveal any protected information, except for one sealed
minute entry, docket no. 277, which may contain proprietary information. Further, it appears
there are means of ensuring trade secret and proprietary information is protected without sealing
so many documents in their entirety.
11

Id. (noting that it may not be appropriate for the court to release “Court Notes” or internal communications noted
on the docket).

12

Id. at 4 (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).

13

See id. at 1179.

14

Id. at 1179-80.

15

Id. (quoting Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

The docket in this case now contains over 2500 docket entries.

3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Biamp’s Motion for Clarification17 and WideBand
Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Access 245418 are GRANTED. The relief requested on this
subject in Biamp’s Emergency Motion for Access to Docket Items,19 Donald Bowers’s and
WideBand Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Access20 (which is all that remains in those
motions as the protection of private and privileged information has been accomplished) and
WideBand Defendant’s Motion for Joinder21 is GRANTED. Donald Bowers’s Motion for
Access 246322 is GRANTED IN PART because the remainder of his requested relief is
unsupported. WideBand Defendants’ and Interested Non-Party Litigants’ Motion to Expedite23
is now MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all the docket entries on this case docket except docket
no. 277 will be made public after 14 days from the date of this order, unless any party objects as
to a specified docket entry within that time, stating specific reasons the docket entry should not
be part of the public docket. After reviewing any objections, the court will issue an order

17

Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc.’s Motion for Clarification Regarding Order Regarding Sealed Documents
[Docket No. 2339] (Motion for Clarification), docket no. 2340, filed Nov. 11, 2010.

18

Emergency Motion for Access to “Court Only User Docket” (Motion for Access 2454), docket no. 2454, filed
Mar. 3, 2011.

19

Biamp Systems Corporation, Inc.’s Emergency Motion for Access to Docket Items and Protection for Information
Protected by the Common-Interest and /or Joint-Defense Privileges, docket no. 2258, filed Sept. 10, 2010.

20

WideBand Defendants’ and Interested Non-Party Litigants/ Emergency Motion for Access to Docket Items and
Protection for Information Protected by the Common Interest, Work Product and/or Joint Defense Privileges, docket
no. 2280, filed Sept. 24, 2010.

21

The WideBand Defendants’ Notice of Joinder for Access to Hidden Docket Items, docket no. 2373, filed Dec. 8,
2010.
22

Emergency Motion for Access to “Court Only User Docket” (Motion for Access 2463), docket no. 2463, filed
Mar. 11, 2011.

23

WideBand Defendants’ and Interested Non-Party Litigants’ Motion to Expedite Emergency Motion for Access to
Docket Items and Protection for Information Protected by the Common Interest, Work Product and/or Joint Defense
Privileges, docket no. 2281, filed Sept. 24, 2010.

4

unsealing docket entr
g
ries. The do
ocuments ass
sociated with the current sealed do
h
tly
ocket entries will,
however, remain seal at that tim
,
led
me.
IT IS FURTH
T
HER ORDER
RED that any party whic desires th a specific sealed
y
ch
hat
c
documen in this case file remain sealed mus file within 60 days of t order, as to each suc
nt
e
n
st
this
s
ch
documen (a) a redac version of such doc
nt,
cted
cument attach to a “No
hed
otice of Filin Redacted
ng
Version of Sealed Do
o
ocument” identifying the sealed docu
e
ument to wh the reda
hich
acted version
n
relates or (b) a statem of facts justifying th a specific document should rema sealed in its
r
ment
hat
c
ain
n
entirety and contains no content which can be made publ
a
w
lic. Those p
parties that ar not electro
re
onic
filers wil provide the Notice and redacted ve
ll
e
d
ersion or stat
tement of fa on a CD, in PDF form
acts
mat
accompa
anied by a pa
aper copy. Sixty days af entry of t order, th magistrate judge will
S
fter
this
he
e
enter an order unseal
o
ling documen in this ca
nts
ase.
IT IS FURTH
T
HER ORDER
RED that fro this date forward, any party that files a docum
om
y
ment
designate to be filed under seal, must do so by providin it to the cl
ed
d
,
ng
lerk on a CD in PDF form
D
mat,
accompa
anied by the paper copy. Registered electronic fi
p
ilers shall als electronic
so
cally file on the
public do
ocket (a) a re
edacted versi or (b) sta
ion
atement of fa justifyin that the d
facts
ng
document sho
ould
remain se
ealed in its entirety and contains no content whic can be made public.
e
c
ch
Dated June 13 2011
D
3,
BY THE CO
OURT:

__________
__________
__________
David Nuff
fer
U.S. Magist
trate Judge

5