Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2018
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 239, 251, 253, 255, 258, 260, 268. EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by the parties in connection with their motions in limine and other pretrial orders. For the reasons set forth below, the motions at Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and 268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253, 255, and 260 ar
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 239, 251, 253, 255, 258, 260, 268. EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by the parties in connection with their motions in limine and other pretrial orders. For the reasons set forth below, the motions at Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and 268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253, 255, and 260 are..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 239, 251, 253, 255, 258, 260, 268.
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by the parties in connection with their motions in limine and other pretrial orders. For the reasons set forth below, the motions at Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and 268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253, 255, and 260 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 each of the parties' sealing motions and the declarations submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
A. Dkt. No. 227
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Corel's Motion in Limine #1 to DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Preclude Certain Pre-Suit Notice without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Testimony prejudice
Exhibit 2 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#1 (excerpts of the 30(b)(6) deposition without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
transcript of Microsoft) prejudice
Exhibit 3 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#1 (Microsoft Corporation's Responses without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
to Corel Corporation's Second Set of prejudice
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
Exhibit 5 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#1 (parties' draft joint letter brief) without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
prejudice
Exhibit 6 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#1 (email from Olga May, counsel for without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Microsoft, dated March 21, 2017) prejudice
B. Dkt. No. 230
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Corel's Motion in Limine #2 to DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Exclude Any Evidence that Contradicts without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Microsoft's 30(b)(6) Witness prejudice
Testimony on Pre-Suit Notice
Exhibit 2 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (excerpts of the 30(b)(6) deposition without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
transcript of Microsoft) prejudice
Exhibit 3 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (Microsoft Corporation's Responses without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
to Corel Corporation's Second Set of prejudice
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
Exhibit 5 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (parties' draft joint letter brief) without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
prejudice
Exhibit 6 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#2 (email from Olga May, counsel for without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Microsoft, dated March 21, 2017) prejudice
C. Dkt. No. 233
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Exhibit 4 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#3 (Microsoft Corporation's Responses without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
to Corel Corporation's Second Set of prejudice
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
D. Dkt. No. 236
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Exhibit 1 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED The only reason provided for sealing is
#4 (excerpts of the Greg Wood's without that the excerpts were designated
deposition transcript, dated May 19, prejudice "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —
2016, from Corel Software, LLC ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" pursuant
v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00528-JNP to the Protective Order entered in the
(D. Utah) ("Utah Case")) Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 236-1.
However this, in and of itself, is not a
sufficient basis for sealing.
Exhibit 6 to Corel's Motion in Limine DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
#4 (Microsoft Corporation's Responses without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
to Corel Corporation's Second Set of prejudice
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
E. Dkt. No. 239
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Exhibit 1 to Corel's Motion in Limine GRANTED. Contains confidential information to
#5 (Opening Expert Report of Microsoft. Dkt. No. 263.
Ambreen Salters on Behalf of
Microsoft Corporation)
F. Dkt. No. 251
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Microsoft's Motion in Limine No. 2: DENIED. Corel, the designating party, does not
Exclusion of Reference to Fish & seek the sealing of the portions of the
Richardson as former Counsel to Corel MSFT MIL # 2 that excerpt or reference
the personal deposition of Eleanor
Lacey. Dkt. No. 262.
Exhibit A to Microsoft's Motion in DENIED. Corel, the designating party, does not
Limine No. 2 (excerpts from the seek the sealing of Exhibit A. Dkt. No.
personal deposition of Eleanor Lacey) 262.
G. Dkt. No. 253
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Microsoft's Motion in Limine No. 3: GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Exclusion of Reference to Corel's relating to Ability's and Corel's licensing
Counterclaims and Affirmative relationship, including sensitive business
Defenses information about Ability's licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
262-1.
Exhibit A to Microsoft's Motion in GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Limine No. 3 (excerpts to the relating to Ability's and Corel's licensing
deposition transcript of Russell Miller) relationship, including sensitive business
information about Ability's licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
262-1.
Exhibit B to Microsoft's Motion in DENIED. Corel, the designating party, does not
Limine No. 3 (excerpts from the seek the sealing of Exhibit B. Dkt. No.
personal deposition of Patrick Nichols) 262.
H. Dkt. No. 255
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Corel's Opposition to Microsoft's DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Motion In Limine No. 1: Exclusion of without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Evidence or Arguments Relating to prejudice
Non-Infringement or Invalidity of the
Asserted Patents
Exhibit 1 to Corel's Opposition to GRANTED. Contains highly sensitive business
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 1 information concerning the relationship
(email from Microsoft, dated between Microsoft and Corel and
December 20, 2016) confidential financial information. Dkt.
No. 255-1 ¶ 4.
Exhibit 2 to Corel's Opposition to DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 1 without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
(Microsoft Corporation's Responses to prejudice
Corel Corporation's Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
I. Dkt. No. 258
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Exhibit 1 to Corel's Opposition to DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 2: without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
Exclusion of Reference to Fish & prejudice
Richardson as Former Counsel to Corel
(Microsoft Corporation's Responses to
Corel Corporation's Second Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 4-15))
J. Dkt. No. 260
Materials to be Sealed Order
Corel's Opposition to Microsoft's DENIED For the highlighted portions on p. 1 ll.
Motion In Limine No. 3: Exclusion of without 13-16: Microsoft, the designating party,
Reference to Corel's Counterclaims prejudice as to has not filed a declaration in support of
and Affirmative Defenses the sealing. For the remainder: contains
highlighted confidential business information
portions on p. relating to Corel and/or Ability. See Dkt.
1 ll. 13-16; No. 260-1 ¶¶ 5-8.
GRANTED
as to the
remainder.
Exhibit 2 to Corel's Opposition to DENIED Microsoft, the designating party, has not
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 3 without filed a declaration in support of sealing.
(excerpts of the deposition transcript of prejudice
Jay Paulus, 30(b)(6) witness for
Microsoft)
Exhibit 5 to Corel's Opposition to GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 3 relating to Ability's and Corel's licensing
(excerpts from the personal deposition relationship, including sensitive business
of third party Christopher England) information about development of
products, and Ability's licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
260-1 ¶ 5.
Exhibit 6 to Corel's Opposition to GRANTED. Contains highly sensitive information
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 3 concerning the business relationship
(Confidential Information between Ability and Corel. Dkt. No.
Memorandum, dated November 7, 260-1 ¶ 6.
2006, that was prepared on behalf of
Ability and shared with Corel)
Exhibit 7 to Corel's Opposition to GRANTED. Contains sensitive financial and business
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 3 information, including contract price and
(confidential licensing agreement Corel's valuation of the license. Dkt.
between Corel and third party Ability No. 260-1 ¶ 7.
International Software (UK))
Exhibit 8 to Corel's Opposition to GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Microsoft's Motion In Limine No. 3 relating to Ability's and Corel's licensing
(excerpts of the personal deposition relationship, including sensitive business
transcript of Russell Miller) information about development of
products, and Ability's licensing
relationship with a third party. Dkt. No.
260-1 ¶ 8.
K. Dkt. No. 268
Materials to be Sealed Order Reasoning
Microsoft's Opposition to Corel's DENIED The only reason provided for sealing is
Motion in Limine #2: Exclude Any without that the excerpts were designated
Evidence that Contradicts Microsoft's prejudice "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —
30(b)(6) Witness Testimony on Pre-Suit ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" pursuant
Notice to the Protective Order entered in the
Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 281. However
this, in and of itself, is not a sufficient
basis for sealing.
Exhibit B to Microsoft's Opposition to DENIED The only reason provided for sealing is
Corel's Motion in Limine #2 (excerpts without that the excerpts were designated
from the deposition transcript of prejudice "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —
Russell Miller) ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" pursuant
to the Protective Order entered in the
Utah Case. See Dkt. No. 281. However
this, in and of itself, is not a sufficient
basis for sealing.
III. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the motions at Dkt. Nos. 227, 230, 233, 236, 251, 258, and 268 are DENIED, the motion at Dkt. No. 239 is GRANTED, and the motions at Dkt. No. 253, 255, and 260 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 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 from the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
