ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 428

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff DSS Technology Management Inc. and Defendant Apple, Inc.'s renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 428. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). "This standard derives from the common law right `to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). "[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process" and "significant public events." Id. at 1178-79 (quotations omitted).

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires a "particularized showing" 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 also 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) (quotation omitted).

Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions, the Court will apply the lower good cause standard.

II. ANALYSIS

The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of Defendant. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The Court originally denied the parties' motions to seal the entirety of the exhibits as the request was not narrowly tailored. The parties have now tailored the request to conceal only the information regarding the identity and operations of third party supplied components in Apple's products or containing confidential information regarding the operations of source code for Apple's products. The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential and proprietary business information, and the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to seal.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties' renewed motion to seal. The following portions of exhibits shall remain sealed:

Redacted versions of these documents, consistent with this order, are available at Dkt. No. 428.

IT IS SO ORDERED.