Filed: Apr. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 191] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records an
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 191] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 191]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to Defendants' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. The Court has reviewed the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of sealing. Yen Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ("Yen Decl."), ECF 191-1; Lin Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ("Lin Decl."), ECF 192. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the portions sought to be sealed. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court's rulings on the sealing motion are set forth in the table below:
ECF Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed:
191-2 Exhibit A to the GRANTED as The proposed redactions at 1:25-27; 2:3-27;
Sealing Declaration to yellow 3:1-28; 4:4-5; 4:8-9; 4:11-22; 4:24-5:2; 5:4-10;
highlighted 5:12-24; 8:10-16; 9:2; 9:11-13; and
(Defendants' Motion to portions. 10:17-22 contain information related to
Amend Scheduling highly confidential patent license
Order and for Leave to agreements of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
File First Amended third-party Quanta, disclosure of which
Counterclaims could cause substantial economic harm to
("Motion to Amend")) Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 3-4;
Yen Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.
191-4 Exhibit C to the GRANTED as The proposed redactions at 22:21-24; 24:1-2;
Sealing Declaration to yellow 24:12-26:2; 26:4-27; 27:1-12; 27:16-28:4;
highlighted 28:8-12; 29:23-25; 29:27; and 30:1-17
(Defendants' File First portions. contain information related to highly
Amended confidential patent license agreements of
Counterclaims) Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third-party
Quanta, disclosure of which could cause
substantial economic harm to Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶¶ 2, 5.
191-6 Exhibit E to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
Declaration deposition transcript of Vincent Hong, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
(Ex. 2 to Yen Decl. in confidential terms of the patent license
Supp. of Motion to agreement between the parties as well as
Amend) information on a confidential royalty
negotiation with a third party, disclosure of
which could cause competitive harm to
Plaintiffs, Quanta, and the third party.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 5.
191-7 Exhibit F to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains information on
Declaration confidential patent license agreements
between Defendants and third party Quanta,
(Ex. 3 to Yen Decl. in disclosure of which would cause
Supp. of Motion to competitive harm to Defendants and
Amend) Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.
191-8 Exhibit G to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains information on
Sealing Declaration confidential patent license agreements
between Defendants and third party Quanta,
(Ex. 4 to Yen Decl. in disclosure of which would cause
Supp. of Motion to competitive harm to Defendants and
Amend) Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.
191-9 Exhibit H to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
Sealing Declaration deposition transcript of Vivian Yeh, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
(Ex. 5 to Yen Decl. in confidential business negotiations between
Supp. of Motion to the parties and confidential communication
Amend) between Plaintiffs and Quant regarding
royalty payments, disclosure of which could
cause competitive harm to Plaintiffs and
Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 6.
191-10 Exhibit I to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains communication
Declaration between employees of third party Quanta
and Plaintiffs regarding confidential royalty
(Ex. 6 to Yen Decl. in payments, disclosure of which could cause
Supp. of Motion to competitive harm to Plaintiffs and Quanta.
Amend) Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 7.
191-11 Exhibit J to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit includes confidential
Declaration business negotiations between the parties
regarding their patent license agreement,
(Ex. 7 to Yen Decl. in disclosure of which could cause competitive
Supp. of Motion to harm to Plaintiffs and Defendants. Mot. 3;
Amend) Lin Decl. ¶ 8.
191-12 Exhibit K to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit consists of a letter from
Sealing Declaration Defendants' general counsel to Vivian Yeh,
an employee of Plaintiffs. The letter
(Ex. 8 to Yen Decl. in contains information related to confidential
Supp. of Motion to business negotiations between the parties,
Amend) disclosure of which would lead to the
violation of the parties' patent license
agreement and cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin
Decl. ¶ 9.
191-13 Exhibit L to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit includes an email
Declaration communication between the parties. The
contained information relates to confidential
(Ex. 9 to Yen Decl. in business negotiations between the parties
Supp. of Motion to regarding their royalty pay arrangement,
Amend) disclosure of which would lead to violation
of the parties' patent license agreement and
cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 10.
191-14 Exhibit M to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential
Sealing Declaration information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta's royalty reports submitted to
(Ex. 10 to Yen Decl. in Defendants, disclosure of which would cause
Supp. of Motion to substantial economic harm to Defendants and
Amend) Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶ 15.
191-15 Exhibit N to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential
Sealing Declaration information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta's royalty reports submitted to
(Ex. 11 to Yen Decl. in Defendants, disclosure of which would
Supp. of Motion to cause substantial economic harm to
Amend) Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶ 16.
191-16 Exhibit O to the GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email
Sealing Declaration communication between Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and third party Quanta
(Ex. 12 to Yen Decl. in regarding confidential royalty payments,
Supp. of Motion to disclosure of which would cause
Amend) competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 11.
191-17 Exhibit P to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential
Declaration information related to Plaintiffs and third
party Quanta's royalty reports submitted to
(Ex. 13 to Yen Decl. in Defendants, disclosure of which would
Supp. of Motion to cause substantial economic harm to
Amend) Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.
¶ 17.
191-18 Exhibit Q to the GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
Sealing Declaration deposition transcript of Louise Thai, an
ASUS employee. The exhibit contains
confidential business communication
(Ex. 14 to Yen Decl. in
between Plaintiffs and Quanta regarding
Supp. of Motion to royalty payments, disclosure of which could
Amend) cause competitive harm to the parties and
Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.
191-19 Exhibit R to the GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email
Sealing Declaration communication between Plaintiffs and
Quanta regarding confidential royalty
payments, disclosure of which would cause
(Ex. 15 to Yen Decl. in
competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Supp. of Motion to Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.
Amend)
191-20 Exhibit S to the Sealing GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email
Declaration communication between Plaintiffs,
Defendants, and third party Quanta
regarding confidential royalty payments,
(Ex. 16 to Yen Decl. in
disclosure of which would cause
Supp. of Motion to competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.
Amend) Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 13.
191-21 Exhibit T to the Sealing GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the
Declaration testimony of Ranae McElvaine, an
Interdigital employee. The exhibit contains
information relating to Defendants'
(Ex. 20 to Yen Decl. in
confidential patent licensing agreement with
Supp. of Motion to Quanta, disclosure of which could cause
Amend) substantial economic harm to Defendants
and Quanta. Mot. 5; Yen Decl. ¶ 22.
191-22 Exhibit U to the GRANTED. The exhibit contains a highly sensitive
Sealing Declaration communication between Defendants and
third party Quanta. The communication
relates to confidential financial information
(Ex. 21 to Yen Decl. in
regarding Defendants' patent licensing
Supp. of Motion to arrangement with Quanta, disclosure of
Amend) which could cause substantial economic
harm to Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 5;
Yen Decl. ¶ 23.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' sealing motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
