Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 468, 503, 515, 522, 523, 524, 537, 539, 541, 556, 560, 564) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by both parties. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any sealing request must be narrowl
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 468, 503, 515, 522, 523, 524, 537, 539, 541, 556, 560, 564) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by both parties. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any sealing request must be narrowly..
More
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 468, 503, 515, 522, 523, 524, 537, 539, 541, 556, 560, 564)
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by both parties.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed "are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable material. Id. The request must be supported by the designating party's declaration establishing that the information is sealable. Id. subsection (d).
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In considering a sealing request, the Court begins with "a strong presumption of access [as] the starting point." Id.
A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing that "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Id. at 1178-79. This is because dispositive motions represent "the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Id. at 1179.
The strong presumption in favor of access does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials, which may be only "tangentially related" to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179-80. A party seeking to seal non-dispositive materials must show good cause exists by making a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" should the information be disclosed. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm" will not suffice. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Court provides the following rulings on the parties' motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.
Docket No. Ruling
468 Digital Reg seeks to seal portions of its
Response to Symantec's Motion to Strike
Devanbu's Expert Report and its
supporting exhibits. These portions
discuss materials designated by Symantec
as "Highly Confidential." Because
Symantec failed to file a supporting
declaration as required by Civil Local
Rule 79-5(e), the motion to seal is
DENIED.
503 Ubisoft requests that portions of its
Motion for Leave to File Third-Party
Complaint and associated documents be
filed under seal. This motion is DENIED
as moot. The underlying motion was
denied as moot, see Docket No. 575, and
so these documents need not be filed
under seal or otherwise.
515 Digital Reg seeks to seal portions of its
Response to Ubisoft's Motion for Leave to
File Third-Party Complaint and supporting
documents. Because the underlying motion
was denied as moot, see above, these
documents need not be filed under seal or
otherwise.
522 Ubisoft moves to seal parts of its Claim
Construction and Summary Judgment Brief,
along with supporting documents. This
request is DENIED because it is not
narrowly-tailored to cover only
information for which there are
compelling reasons to keep under seal.
The Wicker infringement report is not
sealable in full; only portions
discussing source code or otherwise
confidential information that Ubisoft
demonstrates would harm the company if
revealed (such as certain financial
terms) may be sealed. The same is true
of the Valve Settlement Agreement; some
of the language of the Agreement was
crucial to the Court's order. See Apple
Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 727 F.3d
1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Valve
Settlement Agreement therefore cannot be
sealed in full, although "pricing terms,
royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum
payment terms" are likely to be sealable.
In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568,
569 (9th Cir. 2008). Digital Reg, the
designating party, failed to file a
declaration establish that this Agreement
is sealable. Ubisoft and Digital Reg may
resubmit a modified and narrowly-tailored
version of this sealing request no later
than seven days from the issuance of this
order.
523 Adobe seeks permission to seal
(1) documents designated by Digital Reg
as "Highly Confidential" (Exhibits 2, 14,
17); and (2) documents Adobe claims to
cover its trade secret or confidential
financial information (Exhibits 3, 4, 5,
7, 8, 10, 13, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33).
The request to seal the first category of
documents is DENIED because Digital Reg
failed to file a supporting declaration.
The request to seal the second category
is GRANTED because, for the most part,
Adobe limits its request to only source
code or otherwise confidential
information.
524 Symantec seeks to seal portions of its
Motion for Summary Judgment and
Responsive Claim Construction Brief and
accompanying exhibits. This request is
DENIED for failure to narrowly tailor the
request to cover only sealable
information. For example, Symantec seeks
to redact portions of the brief that only
generally describe Symantec's "nagware"
and do not describe specifically its
source code or functionality. Much of
this information was crucial to the
Court's order. Moreover, this
information is general and would not help
would-be "hackers," and thus would not be
detrimental to Symantec if disclosed,
contrary to Symantec's allegations.
537 Digital Reg requests leave to seal
portions of its Response to Ubisoft's
Claim Construction Brief and Motion for
Summary Judgment, along with supporting
exhibits. Digital Reg states that the
information sought to be sealed was
designated confidential by Ubisoft.
Ubisoft filed a declaration supporting
this motion. Because the majority of the
request is narrowly tailored to cover
Ubisoft's confidential server and
detailed source code functionalities, it
is GRANTED except as to Exhibit Q. The
motion is DENIED as to Exhibit Q, or the
Valve Settlement Agreement, for the same
reasons as stated above. The Agreement
is not sealable in full; the request is
not narrowly tailored to cover only
confidential information.
539 Digital Reg asks that information
contained in its Response to Symantec's
Motion for Summary Judgment and
Responsive Claim Construction Brief be
redacted. This information was
designated confidential by Symantec.
Symantec's declaration states that, with
the exception of Exhibits J and K, the
information is sealable. The Court
GRANTS this request as to the Response
itself, but DENIES the request as to the
supporting exhibits, because it is not
narrowly tailored to redact only sealable
information. Symantec may submit a
revised, narrowly tailored request within
seven days of the issuance of this order.
541 Digital Reg seeks to seal portions of its
Response to Adobe's Claim Construction
Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment and
supporting exhibits on the basis that
they contain information designated as
confidential by Adobe. Adobe filed a
supporting declaration. Regarding
Exhibit A, Adobe requested that its
narrowly tailored redacted versions be
filed. This request is GRANTED.
Regarding Exhibits C and D, Adobe does
not oppose filing these documents in the
public record and so the request to seal
is DENIED as moot. Regarding Exhibits F
and G, the request is not narrowly
tailored to cover only sealable
information, so it is DENIED. Regarding
Exhibits I, J, and K, the fact that it
was marked confidential does not mean
that it is sealable, so the request to
seal is DENIED. Adobe's Software License
Agreements are likely made available
publicly to users, and so they will not
be sealed. Exhibits L-1 through L-6
contain detailed descriptions of Adobe's
products, and so the request to seal is
GRANTED. Adobe does not object to
Exhibit L-7 being filed in the public
record, and so the request to seal is
DENIED as moot. Some portions of Digital
Reg's brief improperly redact public
information, as detailed in the rulings
above, and so the request to seal is
GRANTED in part. Digital Reg must file a
version of its brief complying with the
rulings above.
556 Symantec and Ubisoft file a motion to
redact portions of Defendants' Summary
Judgment and Responsive Claim
Construction Brief. This request is
DENIED because it not narrowly tailored
to cover only sealable information. For
example, general descriptions of
Symantec's "nagware" and Ubisoft's Uplay
software, Ubisoft's distributors, and
expert admissions about the parties'
infringement positions are not sealable.
Nor are crucial terms of the Valve
License Agreement. Symantec and Ubisoft
may submit a revised request no later
than seven days after the issuance of
this order.
560 Digital Reg moves to seal portions of its
Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment
and Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
along with numerous exhibits containing
information that was designated as
confidential by Defendants. Regarding
the Adobe-related exhibits, the motion is
GRANTED as to Exhibit 9 and 19; DENIED as
to Exhibits 16, 17, 18, which are
publicly available documents; DENIED as
to Exhibits 13 and 14 for failure to
narrowly tailor the request and lack of
support from Ubisoft, the designating
party; and DENIED as moot as to Exhibits
11, 12. Regarding Symantec-related
exhibits, the motion is GRANTED as to
Exhibits 26, 27, and 48; DENIED as to
Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 for failure
to narrowly tailor the request; and
DENIED as moot as to Exhibits 30 and 31
because Symantec does not oppose filing
these documents publicly. Regarding
Ubisoft-related exhibits, the motion is
GRANTED as to Exhibits 34, 35, 36, 37,
43, 44, 45, 46, 47; but DENIED as to
Exhibits 32, 33, 38, and 39 for failure
to narrowly tailor the request. Exhibit
41 is the Valve Settlement Agreement and
the request to seal is DENIED for the
reasons stated previously in this order.
The motion to seal the brief is GRANTED
in part according to the ruling on the
exhibits above.
564 Defendants seek to seal information that
Digital Reg designated as "Highly
Confidential." Digital Reg never
submitted a supporting declaration, and
in any event the information does not
appear to be sealable, so the request is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
