Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC., 5:13-cv-03385-PSG. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150129e02 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 431, 433) PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge. Before the court are two administrative motions to seal multiple documents. "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
More

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 431, 433)

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal multiple documents. "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

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

Motion Document to be Result Reason/Explanation to Seal Sealed 431 Opposition to • Page 5:23-24 UNSEALED Only sealed portions Defendants' • Page 6:5 UNSEALED narrowly tailored to Motion to Strike • Page 6:6-7 specific customer reference confidential business Affirmative SEALED and customer Defenses • Page 6:9 UNSEALED information. • Page 6:14-15 UNSEALED • Page 12:17-19 UNSEALED While the protective • Page 13:9-10 UNSEALED order extends to names • Page 16:27-28 specific customer of individuals references SEALED employed by Terix • Page 17:14-19 UNSEALED, except customers, it does not • Page 17:15-16 specific customer extend to individuals references SEALED employed by Terix, • Page 17:18 specific customer i.e. Mr. Appleby who reference SEALED tendered the • All other designations UNSEALED declaration in support of sealing. 431 Exhibit 1 UNSEALED Declaration as filed (Docket No. does not support 432-1) sealing. 431 Exhibit 22 UNSEALED No such exhibit filed with the court. 431 Exhibit 4 • Page 7:6 specific customer reference Only sealed portions SEALED narrowly tailored to (Docket No. • Page 8:11 specific customer reference confidential business 431-6) SEALED and customer • Page 10:26 specific customer reference information. SEALED • Page 14:17-26; "See, e.g." until "Terix" While the protective SEALED order extends to names • Page 18:27-19:10 SEALED, except of individuals • Page 19:3-19:7; "See, e.g." employed by Terix through "Ex. 565" UNSEALED customers, it does not • Page 20:12 UNSEALED extend to individuals • Page 20:25 specific customer reference employed by Terix, SEALED i.e. Mr. Appleby who • All other designations UNSEALED tendered the declaration in support of sealing. 431 Exhibit 5 • Page 3:10-19 UNSEALED Only sealed portions • Page 31:5-7; line 5 through "Terix is" narrowly tailored to (Docket No. SEALED confidential business 431-8) • Page 32:22-38:15 SEALED or customer information. 431 Exhibit 6 • Page 18:13-23 SEALED Narrowly tailored to • Pages 20:8-21:15 SEALED confidential customer (Docket No. • Pages 23:24-24:9 SEALED information. 431-10) 431 Exhibit 7 • Page 4:2-3 SEALED Narrowly tailored to • Pages 46:5-144:24 portions outlined in confidential customer (Docket No. black SEALED information. 431-12) • Page 145:1 specific customer reference SEALED • Page 145:14-17,23 specific customer references SEALED • Page 146:1,3,5,6,8,10,14-17,19,23-25 specific customer references SEALED • Page 147:5,6,10,16,19,24 specific customer references SEALED • Page 148:13,17,20,24-25 specific customer references SEALED • Page 149:3,7,10,18,23-25 specific customer references SEALED • All other designations UNSEALED 433 Exhibit A • Page 18:18-21 redacted portions Only sealed portions SEALED narrowly tailored to (Docket No. • Pages 18:23-19:1 redacted portions confidential business 433-4) SEALED and customer • Page 19:5-6 UNSEALED information. • Page 19:26 UNSEALED • Page 21:16 UNSEALED While the protective • Page 23:9-15 redacted portions order extends to names SEALED of individuals • Pages 23:23-24:9 redacted portions employed by Terix SEALED customers, it does not • Page 24:21-22 UNSEALED extend to individuals • Page 24:26-27 redacted portions employed by Terix, SEALED i.e. Mr. Appleby who • Page 25:2-3 UNSEALED tendered the • Page 25:18 redacted portions SEALED declaration in support • Page 25:20 UNSEALED of sealing. • Page 25:25 redacted portions SEALED • Page 26:8 redacted portions SEALED • Page 26:12 UNSEALED • Page 26:15 redacted portions SEALED • Page 26:21 UNSEALED • Page 26:28 UNSEALED • Page 27:2 UNSEALED • Page 27:14-20 redacted portions SEALED • Page 28:6-9 redacted portions SEALED • Page 28:10-17 UNSEALED, except • Line 14 after "Ex. 565" through line 17 SEALED • Page 29:13 UNSEALED • Page 29:24 UNSEALED • Pages 29:26-30:4 redacted portions SEALED • Page 30:8-9 UNSEALED • Page 32:11-13 UNSEALED • Page 33:3-12 redacted portions SEALED • All other designations UNSEALED 433 Exhibit B • Page 16:17 UNSEALED Only sealed portions • Page 16:25-28 redacted portions narrowly tailored to (Docket No. SEALED confidential business 433-6) • Page 17:2-8 redacted portions SEALED and customer • Page 17:12-13 UNSEALED information. • Page 17:13 UNSEALED • Page 18:7-8 UNSAELED While the protective • Page 19:26 UNSEALED order extends to names • Page 21:19-25 redacted portions of individuals SEALED employed by Terix • Page 22:5-19 redacted portions customers, it does not SEALED extend to individuals • Page 23:3-4 UNSEALED employed by Terix, • Page 23:8-9 redacted portions SEALED i.e. Mr. Appleby who • Page 23:12-13 UNSEALED tendered the • Page 23:16-17 from start of line 16 until declaration in support "For both contracts" SEALED of sealing. • Page 23:28 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:2 UNSEALED • Page 24:7 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:18 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:22 UNSEALED • Page 24:25 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:28 redacted portions SEALED • Page 25:3 UNSEALED • Page 25:10 UNSEALED • Page 25:12 UNSEALED • Page 25:24 redacted portions SEALED • Page 26:15-18 redacted portions SEALED • Page 26:19-26 UNSEALED, except • Line 23 after "Ex. 565" though line 26 SEALED • Page 27:22 UNSEALED • Page 28:5 UNSEALED • Page 28:7-13 redacted portions SEALED • Page 28:17-18 UNSEALED • Page 29:20-25 redacted portions SEALED • Page 30:28-31:2 UNSEALED • Page 31:20-32-1 redacted portions SEALED • All other designations UNSEALED

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 "unredacted 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.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer