Filed: Jun. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS (Re: Docket Nos. 485. 487, 488, 489, 501, 508) PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge. The court has before it a series of motions to seal documents submitted either before or during trial. "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." 2 Parties seeking
Summary: ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS (Re: Docket Nos. 485. 487, 488, 489, 501, 508) PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge. The court has before it a series of motions to seal documents submitted either before or during trial. "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." 2 Parties seeking t..
More
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 485. 487, 488, 489, 501, 508)
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
The court has before it a series of motions to seal documents submitted either before or during trial. "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point."2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3
However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest."4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"7 that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.8 "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice.9 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.11
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)."12 "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable."13
Motion to Document to be Result Reason
Seal Sealed
Apple's Second
Motion to Exclude the Not narrowly tailored
485 Opinions and UNSEALED to confidential
Testimony of Mr. Karl business information
J. Schulze, CPA
SEALED UNSEALED
Pgs 12-24 Pg. 5
Pg. 38 Pg. 8-9
Exhibit A to Teter Sealed portions reflect
Declaration ISO Pg. 51 Pg. 11 narrow tailoring to
Apple's Second Pg. 7 Pg. 33-34 protect confidential
485 Motion to Exclude the business information.
Opinions and Ex. 1 Pg. 36 Unsealed portions do
Testimony of Mr. Karl Ex. 2 Pg. 49-50 not or lack a
J. Schulze, CPA supporting declaration.
Ex. 5
Ex. 6
Ex. 7
Exhibit B to Teter
Declaration ISO
Apple's Second
Motion to Exclude the Not narrowly tailored
485 Opinions and UNSEALED to confidential
Testimony of Mr. Karl business information
J. Schulze, CPA
Exhibit C to Teter
Declaration ISO
Apple's Second No supporting
485 Motion to Exclude the UNSEALED declaration filed
Opinions and
Testimony of Mr. Karl
J. Schulze, CPA
Maghame Declaration
ISO Apple's Second
Motion to Exclude the Not narrowly tailored
485 Opinions and UNSEALED to confidential
Testimony of Mr. Karl business information
J. Schulze, CPA
GBT's Opposition to
Apple's Second
Motion to Exclude the UNSEALED No supporting
487 Opinions and declaration filed
Testimony of Mr. Karl
J. Schulze, CPA
Schulze Declaration
ISO GBT's Opposition
to Apple's Second
487 Motion to Exclude the UNSEALED No supporting
Opinions and declaration filed
Testimony of Mr. Karl
J. Schulze, CPA
GBT's Opposition to
488 Apple's Second UNSEALED No supporting
Daubert Motion declaration filed
Schulze Declaration
ISO GBT's
488 Opposition to Apple's UNSEALED No supporting
Second Daubert declaration filed
Motion
Irving Declaration ISO
GBT's Opposition to No supporting
489 Apple's Second UNSEALED declaration filed
Daubert Motion
Exhibit A to Irving
Declaration ISO
489 GBT's Opposition to UNSEALED No supporting
Apple's Second declaration filed
Daubert Motion
Exhibit B to Irving
Declaration ISO
489 GBT's Opposition to UNSEALED No supporting
Apple's Second declaration filed
Daubert Motion
Apple's Objection to
Exhibits 67, 81, And
501 99 and Any Damages UNSEALED No supporting
Theory Involving the declaration filed
Same
Exhibit A to Mead
Declaration ISO
Apple's Objection to
501 Exhibits 67, 81, And UNSEALED No supporting
99 and Any Damages declaration filed
Theory Involving the
Same
Exhibit B to Mead
Declaration ISO
Apple's Objection to
501 Exhibits 67, 81, And UNSEALED No supporting
99 and Any Damages declaration filed
Theory Involving the
Same
Exhibit C to Mead
Declaration ISO
Apple's Objection to
501 Exhibits 67, 81, And UNSEALED No supporting
99 and Any Damages declaration filed
Theory Involving the
Same
Exhibit D to Mead
Declaration ISO
Apple's Objection to
501 Exhibits 67, 81, And UNSEALED No supporting
99 and Any Damages declaration filed
Theory Involving the
Same
Exhibit E to Mead
Declaration ISO
Apple's Objection to
501 Exhibits 67, 81, And UNSEALED No supporting
99 and Any Damages declaration filed
Theory Involving the
Same
Apple's Motion for
508 Judgment as a Matter UNSEALED No supporting
of Law on Damages declaration filed
Sealed portions reflect
Exhibit 1 to Mead narrow tailoring to
Declaration ISO protect confidential
508 Apple's Motion for UNSEALED, except 10:12-15 business information.
Judgment as a Matter Unsealed portions lack
of Law on Damages a supporting
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Kamakana v. City & County 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)).
2. Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
3. Id. at 1178-79.
4. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
5. See id. at 1180.
6. Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
7. Id.
8. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
9. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
11. See 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.").
12. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unreadacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
13. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5 for the purposes of this order.
