ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 578, 584, 594, 598)

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Golden Bridge Technologies filed an administrative motion to file under seal their motion for renewed judgment as a matter of law as well as Exhibits 11 and 12.1 Golden Bridge did not provide notice to third parties Intel and Qualcomm as to the contents of the redacted material.2 The court ordered Golden Bridge to provide Intel and Qualcomm notice,3 and Golden Bridge did so by filing another motion to file under seal a corrected Exhibit 124 and a correction of Exhibit 11 such that Exhibit 11 no longer requires sealing.5 In ruling on Golden Bridge's motion to file under seal the motion for renewed judgment as a matter of law at Docket No. 578, the court therefore strikes the old unredacted Exhibits 11 and 12.6 The clerk shall remove those documents. This order further corrects its Order re: Motions to Seal filed in error at Docket No. 598.

"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"7 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point."8 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.9

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."10 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.11 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).12 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"13 that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.14 "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice.15 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,16 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.17

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)."18 "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."19

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

SO ORDERED.