Filed: Mar. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS [Re: ECF 217, 218, 231, 239] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their summary judgment motions. ECF 217, 218, 231, 239. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, includin
Summary: ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS [Re: ECF 217, 218, 231, 239] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their summary judgment motions. ECF 217, 218, 231, 239. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including..
More
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS
[Re: ECF 217, 218, 231, 239]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their summary judgment motions. ECF 217, 218, 231, 239. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." 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." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties' sealing motions and declarations in support thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of most of the submitted documents. For requests that were denied below, the parties' declarations fail to establish that the identified material is "sealable." 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." Id. The compelling reasons standard must be met even as to documents that were previously filed under seal or protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court further notes that certain but not all proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
A. ECF 217
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed and Request
Notice of Motion and Motion Highlighted portions at GRANTED as to the
For Summary Judgment Pages 9-12, 14, and 15 in their highlighted positions.
Infringement of U.S. Patent entirety, at 13:1-23; and at
No. 8,476,747 and Partial 16:1-25 contain circuit
Summary Judgment of No schematics and sensitive
Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. information about the products
7,313,187 and 8,476,747 of Defendants ASUS
("Motion for Computer Int'l, ASUSTeK
Summary Judgment") Computer Inc., and ASMedia
Tech. Inc. ("ASMedia"),
(collectively, "ASUS").
Ex. 1 to Gomez Decl. Paragraphs 23 and 25 contain GRANTED as to Paragraphs
(Gomez's expert report confidential customer 23, 25, 62, 64-72, 74, 76-82,
regarding patent infringement) information to ASMedia Tech. 85, 87-88, 91, 93-94, 98-102,
Inc. 104-106, 110-114, 118, 121,
Paragraphs 62, 64-72, 74, 76-82, 123-128, 130, 132-137, 139,
85, 87-88, 91, 93-94, 98-102 141, 147-151, 153-155, 157-170,
104-106, 110-114, 118, 174-188, 190-203, 205-206
121, 123-128, 130, 132-137, 211-215, and 217-230;
139, 141, 147-151, 153-155, and DENIED as to remainder.
157-170, 174-188, 190-203,
205-206, 211-215, and 217-230
contain confidential
information relating to ASUS
products.
Exhibits 11-17 to Kroeger The exhibits contain GRANTED.
Decl. confidential information on the
design of ASMedia's products
Exhibit 21 to Kroeger Decl. Pages 21-32 in their entirety, GRANTED as to pages 21-32
(Baker's expert report paragraphs 81-85, 87, 107, and in their entirety; and
regarding non-infringement) attachment 2 and attachment 3 paragraphs 81-85, 87, 107, and
contain confidential attachment 2 and attachment 3;
information on ASMedia's and DENIED as to remainder.
products, such as product
design and manufacture.
B. ECF 218
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed and Request
ASUS' Motion for Partial 15:11-12; 15:14-17; 15:18-20; DENIED.
Summary Judgment 16:2-8 contain materials where
the parties have designated as
highly confidential.
Declarations provide no
compelling reasons.
Ex. 6 to Bhaker Decl. (Feb. 15 Highlighted portions contain DENIED.
and 17, 2017 Gomez Dep. Tr.) materials where the parties
have designated as highly
confidential. Declarations
provide no compelling reasons.
Exs. A and B to Wang Decl. These exhibits are the criminal GRANTED.
complaint and supplemental
criminal complaint for search
and seizure to the Taiwan
Prosecution Office. The Court
finds these documents as those
"traditionally kept secret,"
such as grand jury transcripts
and warrant materials during
the pre-indictment phase of an
investigation, and thus
sealable. Kamakana, 447 F.3d
at 1185.
Exs. F and G to Zhang Decl. These exhibits are certified GRANTED.
translations of Exs. A and B to
Wang Decl. These are
sealable for the same reasons
as Exs. A and B to Wang Decl.
above.
Exs. K, L, M, and R to The exhibits contain materials DENIED.
Lemieux Decl. (Excerpts of where the parties have
Dep. Trs. of Lai and Chen). designated as highly
confidential. Declarations
provide no compelling reasons.
C. ECF 231
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed and Request
Ex. 1 to Gomez Decl. ISO This exhibit is an expert report GRANTED as to pages 45-51,
Plaintiffs' opposition to and VIA seeks to seal the 102-103, 105-106, 108, 110,
Defendants' Summary entirety of this exhibit because and 112; and paragraphs 117-123,
Judgment Motion it contains trade secret 188-198; and DENIED as
information on VIA's to remainder.
products. However, sealing
the entire exhibit is not
justified because not all
paragraphs pertain to sealable
information. This request is
thus not narrowly tailored.
ASUS seeks to seal pages 45-51,
102-103, 105-106, 108,
110, and 112; and paragraphs
117-123, 188-198 because they
contain design and
manufacture information on
ASMedia's chips.
D. ECF 239
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed and Request
Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Highlighted portions at 2:21-26, GRANTED as to the
Support of Their Motion for 3:2-5 contain confidential highlighted portions.
Summary Judgment of information regarding
Infringement of U.S. Patent ASMedia' revenues and sales.
No. 8,467,747 and Partial
Summary Judgment of No
Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,131,187 and 8,467,747 (the
"Reply").
Exhibit 24 to the Declaration Highlighted portions at 35:22-37:13 GRANTED as to the
of Paul A. Kroeger in Support contain competitive highlighted portions.
of Plaintiffs' Reply. information and identify
ASMedia's customers.
Exhibit 25 to the Declaration This is purportedly an expert DENIED.
of Paul A. Kroeger in Support report of James Pampinella
of Plaintiffs' Reply. and VIA seeks to seal the
entirety of this exhibit because
it contains confidential revenue
and sales information. VIA
fails to file an unredacted
version of this exhibit,
preventing the Court from
evaluating whether the entire
exhibit contains sealable
information and that the
redaction is narrowly tailored.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the sealing motions at ECF 217, 218, 231, 239. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion so to provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
