Filed: Sep. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2014
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 92, 150, 158, 164, 176, 179, 186) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple 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 on
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 92, 150, 158, 164, 176, 179, 186) CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple 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 onl..
More
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 92, 150, 158, 164, 176, 179, 186)
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal filed by multiple 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 "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 motions, which may be only `tangentially related" to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179-80. A party seeking to seal materials related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause 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
92 PQ Labs moves to seal Exhibits A-F to the
declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D., in
support of PQ Labs' opposition to the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The motion is DENIED. With regard to
Exhibits A and B, which consist entirely
of design cache displays from the PQ Labs
PQ9131 schematic and the Zaagtech GodFace
V1.0 XEM schematic, PQ Labs does not
explain how merely revealing the file
names displayed in these exhibits would
reveal trade secrets. With regard to
Exhibits C-F, the request is not narrowly
tailored to cover only the information
for which there are compelling reasons to
keep under seal. The exhibits are not
sealable in full; only portions revealing
trade secrets, such as the schematics
themselves, may be sealed. PQ Labs may
resubmit a modified and narrowly tailored
version of this sealing request no later
than seven days from the date of this
order. If it does not do so, the
documents will be filed in the public
record.
150 Defendants move to seal portions of
Exhibit A and the entirety of Exhibits G
and H to the declaration of Perry J.
Narancic in support of Defendants' motion
to exclude the report and testimony of
Mark P. Berkman. The motion is GRANTED
because the materials are related to a
non-dispositive motion, and because
Defendants limit their request to only
trade secret or other confidential
information.
158 Defendants move to seal certain documents
that were attached to their Trial Exhibit
391. Those documents contain schematic
illustrations and technical
specifications of Plaintiffs' products,
the publication of which would reveal
trade secrets. The motion is GRANTED
because Defendants limit their request to
trade secret information.
164 Plaintiffs move to seal portions of
Exhibit A to the declaration of Steven A.
Ellenberg in support of their first and
third motions in limine, by which
Plaintiffs sought to exclude certain
testimony of Defendants' expert Sandeep
Chatterjee.1 The motion is GRANTED
because the materials are in support of a
non-dispositive motion, and because
Plaintiffs limit their request to only
trade secret or other confidential
information.
176 Plaintiffs move to seal Paragraph 31 of
their Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, which identifies the
specific trade secrets at issue in this
lawsuit. The motion is GRANTED because
Plaintiffs limit their request to trade
secret information.
179 Plaintiffs move (1) to seal from the
public record, by redaction, certain
parts of the Reporter's Transcript of the
trial proceedings on March 10 and March
11, 2014, which concern Plaintiffs' trade
secrets; and (2) to seal certain trial
exhibits2 which were admitted into
evidence on March 10 and 11, 2014, and
which contain trade secrets, pricing and
customer data, and other confidential
information. The motion is GRANTED
because Plaintiffs limit their request
only to trade secret or other
confidential information.
186 Plaintiffs move to seal Paragraphs 20 and
27 of their reply to Defendants' Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
which discuss the specific trade secrets
at issue in this lawsuit. Although the
specific redactions identified in Docket
No. 186-3 appear to be proper, the Court
observes that certain sentences from the
unredacted version appear neither in the
text of the redacted version, nor as
redactions. Compare Docket No. 186-3, ¶
27, with Docket No. 186-4, ¶ 27 (filed
under seal). For this reason, the motion
is DENIED. Plaintiffs may resubmit a
modified and narrowly tailored version of
this sealing request no later than seven
days from the date of this order. If
they do not do so, the documents will be
filed in the public record.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, PQ Labs's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No. 92) is DENIED, with leave to resubmit within seven days from the date of this order; Defendants' Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Docket Nos. 150, 158) are GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No. 164) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Docket Nos. 176, 179) are GRANTED; and Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No.186) is DENIED, with leave to resubmit within seven days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
