Filed: Nov. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket No. 588, 590, 603, 607, 616, 621, 627, 646, 650, 654, 656, 701, 719, 725) 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 b
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket No. 588, 590, 603, 607, 616, 621, 627, 646, 650, 654, 656, 701, 719, 725) 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..
More
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket No. 588, 590, 603, 607, 616, 621, 627, 646, 650, 654, 656, 701, 719, 725)
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.
Here, each of the administrative motions to seal is made in connection with dispositive motions. A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing "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 Court provides the following rulings on the parties' motions to seal, as articulated in the table below.
Docket No. Ruling
588 Digital Reg seeks to file under seal (1) the
unredacted version of its brief in opposition to
certain legal defenses raised by Adobe; and
(2) certain exhibits to the declaration of W. Paul
Schuck in support of that brief. The motion is
DENIED. With respect to Digital Reg's brief, the
motion is denied for failure to comply with Civ.
L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D), which provides both that the
unredacted version "must indicate, by highlighting
or other clear method, the portions of the
document that have been omitted from the redacted
version," and that the unredacted version
"prominently display the notation UNREDACTED
VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED." With
respect to Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,
L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S to the Schuck
declaration, the motion is denied for failure to
comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that
a request to seal be "narrowly tailored to seek
sealing only of sealable material." It appears
that Digital Reg made no attempt whatsoever to
narrowly tailor its request by providing the Court
with redacted and unredacted versions of these
exhibits, but instead merely provided a cover page
for each reading "DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL."
The rule requires more. Digital Reg may resubmit
a modified and narrowly tailored version of this
sealing request no later than seven days from the
date of this order. Specifically with regard to
the listed exhibits, Digital Reg must submit both
redacted and unredacted versions of each exhibit,
with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable
material; if Digital Reg believes that an exhibit
should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain
why in an accompanying declaration.
590 Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted
version of its motions in limine; (2) the
unredacted version of its brief regarding certain
legal defenses; (3) several exhibits to the
declaration of Byron C. Beebe; and (4) the
unredacted version of Exhibit 10 to the Beebe
declaration. With respect to Adobe's motions in
limine, its brief, and Exhibits 2 and 10, the
motion is GRANTED, because Adobe limits its
redactions to financial and otherwise confidential
information. With regard to Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6,
8, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 18, which Adobe seeks to
seal in their entirety, the motion is DENIED for
failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which
requires that requests to seal be narrowly
tailored. Adobe may, within seven days from the
date of this order, resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing request,
with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable
material; if Adobe believes that an exhibit should
be sealed in its entirety, it must explain why in
an accompanying declaration.
603 Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted
version of its response to Digital Reg's motions
in limine; and (2) certain exhibits to the
declaration of Byron C. Beebe in support of that
response. With respect to the response brief, the
motion is GRANTED, because Adobe limits its
redactions to confidential information. With
respect to Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 10 to the Beebe
declaration, which Adobe seeks to seal in their
entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure to
comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that
requests to seal be narrowly tailored. Adobe may,
within seven days from the date of this order,
resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version
of this sealing request, with redactions narrowly
tailored to only sealable material; if Adobe
believes that an exhibit should be sealed in its
entirety, it must explain why in an accompanying
declaration.
607 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal (1) the
unredacted version of its response to Adobe's
motions in limine; and (2) certain exhibits to the
declaration of W. Paul Schuck in support of that
response. The motion is DENIED. With respect to
Digital Reg's response, the motion is denied for
failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D),
which requires that the unredacted version show,
by highlighting or other equally clear method, the
aterial that has been omitted from the redacted
version. With respect to Exhibits A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, H, I, J, K, L, O, P, and T to the Schuck
declaration, which Digital Reg seeks to seal in
their entirety, the motion is denied for failure
to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires
that requests to seal be narrowly tailored.
Digital Reg may resubmit a modified and narrowly
tailored version of this sealing request no later
than seven days from the date of this order.
Specifically with regard to the listed exhibits,
Digital Reg must submit both redacted and
unredacted versions of each exhibit, with
redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable
material; if Digital Reg believes that an exhibit
should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain
why in an accompanying declaration.
616 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal citations to
the record indicating use of Adobe's ALM
technology in its AMT product. The motion is
DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R.
79-5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted
version show, by highlighting or other equally
clear method, the material that has been omitted
from the redacted version. Digital Reg may,
within seven days of the date of this order,
resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version
of this sealing request.
621 Adobe seeks permission to seal the unredacted
version of its response to Digital Reg's ALM-AMT
citations to the record. The motion is DENIED for
failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D),
which requires that the unredacted version show,
by highlighting or other equally clear method, the
material that has been omitted from the redacted
version. Adobe may, within seven days of this
order, resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request.
627 Adobe seeks permission to seal (1) the unredacted
version of its update to its motions in limine and
objection to Digital Reg's supplemental expert
report; and (2) Exhibit A to that update. With
respect to the update brief, the motion is
GRANTED, because Adobe limits its request to
confidential financial information. With respect
to Exhibit A, which Adobe seeks to seal in its
entirety, the motion is DENIED for failure to
comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that
requests to seal be narrowly tailored. Adobe may,
within seven days from the date of this order,
resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored version
of this sealing request, with redactions narrowly
tailored to only sealable material; if Adobe
believes that the exhibit should be sealed in its
entirety, it must explain why in an accompanying
declaration.
646 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal Exhibit A to
the identification of deposition testimony for
presentation at trial of Joseph Jones. Because
the request is limited to confidential technical
information, the motion is GRANTED.
650 Adobe seeks permission to seal its reply brief
concerning its renewed motion to exclude the
testimony of Digital Reg's damages expert, Mr.
Russell Parr. The motion is DENIED for failure to
comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D), which
requires that the unredacted version show, by
highlighting or other equally clear method, the
material that has been omitted from the redacted
version. Adobe may, within seven days of this
order, resubmit a modified version of this sealing
request that includes an unredacted version of the
reply brief showing, via highlighting or other
clear method, the portions of the document that
have been omitted from the redacted version.
654 Adobe seeks permission to seal the rebuttal expert
report of its damages expert, Dr. Stephen D.
Prowse. Although Mr. Pradhan's declaration in
support of the motion identifies specific
paragraphs of the report that contain confidential
information, Adobe does not seek to redact that
information, but rather appears to seek to seal
the report in its entirety. The motion is DENIED
for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(b),
which requires that requests to seal be narrowly
tailored. Adobe may, within seven days of this
order, resubmit a modified version of this sealing
request with redactions narrowly tailored to only
sealable material; if Adobe believes that the
exhibit should be sealed in its entirety, it must
explain why in an accompanying declaration.
656 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal its
opposition brief to Adobe's renewed motion to
exclude the testimony of Mr. Parr. The motion is
DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R.
79-5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted
version show, by highlighting or other clear
method, the material that was omitted from the
redacted version. Digital Reg may, within seven
days of this order, resubmit a modified version of
this sealing request.
701 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal the
unredacted version of its offer of proof regarding
Trial Exhibits 43, 44, and 45, including three
attachments to the offer of proof. With respect
to the attachments, the motion is GRANTED. With
respect to the offer of proof, the motion is
DENIED for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D),
which requires that the unredacted
version show, by highlighting or other clear
method, the material that was omitted from the
redacted version. Digital Reg may, within seven
days of this order, resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing request.
719 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal several
demonstrative exhibits submitted in support of its
offer of proof for Trial Exhibits 175A, 175B, and
176C. Although Mr. Schuck states in his
declaration that the demonstratives contain
confidential information, Digital Reg seeks to
seal them in their entirety rather than merely
redacting the confidential information. The
motion is DENIED for failure to comply with Civ.
L.R. 79-5(b), which requires that requests to seal
be narrowly tailored. Digital Reg may, within
seven days of this order, resubmit a modified and
narrowly tailored version of this sealing request
with redactions narrowly tailored to only sealable
material; if Digital Reg believes that the exhibit
should be sealed in its entirety, it must explain
why in an accompanying declaration.
725 Digital Reg seeks permission to seal (1) Trial
Exhibits 43a, 44, 45a, 46, 98, and 100, which are
license agreements and/or settlement agreements,
each of which contains confidential financial
information; and (2) Trial Exhibit 695, a
demonstrative exhibit that sets forth key terms
for patent licenses and/or settlement agreements.
Because the request is limited to financial or
other confidential information, the motion is
GRANTED.
Judgment will enter after all of these outstanding motions have been decided.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
