Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . Currently before the Court are plaintiff Skyworks' administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Skyworks' opposition to motions by defendant Kinetic Technologies, Inc. (Kinetic USA). Docket Nos. 60; 82; 104. Also before the Court are Kinetic USA's administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Kinetic's reply and supplemental briefs on the
Summary: ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . Currently before the Court are plaintiff Skyworks' administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Skyworks' opposition to motions by defendant Kinetic Technologies, Inc. (Kinetic USA). Docket Nos. 60; 82; 104. Also before the Court are Kinetic USA's administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Kinetic's reply and supplemental briefs on the s..
More
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Currently before the Court are plaintiff Skyworks' administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Skyworks' opposition to motions by defendant Kinetic Technologies, Inc. (Kinetic USA). Docket Nos. 60; 82; 104. Also before the Court are Kinetic USA's administrative motions to file various documents under seal, in connection with Kinetic's reply and supplemental briefs on the same motions. Docket Nos. 66; 87; 89.
Defendant Kinetic USA, the designating party, has submitted the declarations of Scott Kolassa and Oliver Kroll in support of the motions to file under seal. Docket Nos. 63; 66; 83; 106. Kinetic USA alleges that certain portions of the summary judgment briefs contain confidential information about Kinetic USA's technology, product development and planning, business strategies, finances, and confidential information of third parties; Kinetic USA contends that public disclosure of this information could have adverse financial and competitive consequences to Kinetic USA.
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are "traditionally kept secret," courts begin their sealing analysis with "a strong presumption in favor of access." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). "A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal 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." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be "narrowly tailored," such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). These documents are submitted in connection to a dispositive motion. Accordingly, to establish that these documents are sealable, Kinetic USA has the burden of articulating "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings" that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
The Court has considered each of the documents designated for sealing, as articulated in the table below.
Docket Document Title Court's Ruling
No.
60-1 Exhibit A DENIED.
Exhibit B The request is not narrowly tailored and seeks to file
Exhibit C transcripts of deposition testimony in their entirety because
Exhibit D they are "not practically susceptible to redaction."
60-1 Exhibit I DENIED.
Exhibit Q The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain
confidential financial and business practice information and
product planning and development information of Kinetic
USA and related entities and that public disclosure of this
confidential information would enable a competitor to
unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to
compete in the marketplace. Kinetic USA seeks to file these
documents under seal in their entirety. Skyworks does not
oppose this sealing, but the Court finds that Kinetic USA's
proffered reasons for sealing are insufficient under
Kamakana. Kinetic USA has not articulated compelling
reasons supported by factual findings that outweigh the
public's right of access. Furthermore, this request is not
narrowly tailored. Here, Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal
information that it did not designate as sealable in Exhibit N.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as to these
Exhibits.
60-1 Exhibit M DENIED.
Exhibit O The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain
Exhibit S confidential financial information, technical information,
product planning and development data, business projections
and strategies and confidential information belonging to
Kinetic USA and/or third parties and that public disclosure of
this confidential information would pose a significant threat
to Kinetic USA's competitive standing and would invade the
confidentiality of third parties. Kinetic USA seeks to file
these documents under seal in their entirety but has not
articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings
that outweigh the public's right of access. In addition,
Kinetic USA's request is not narrowly tailored. For example,
information that Kinetic USA did not designate as sealable in
the revised version of Exhibit N is designated as sealable in
Exhibits M and S. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
motion to file these documents under seal.
60-1 Exhibit R DENIED.
Exhibit U The Kolassa declaration states that these Exhibits contain
Exhibit V confidential technical information belonging to Kinetic USA
Exhibit X and/or related entities along with confidential information
belonging to one or more third parties, the public disclosure
of which would pose a threat to Kinetic USA's competitive
standing and would invade the confidentiality of third parties.
Kinetic USA seeks to file these exhibits under seal in their
entirety. This request is not narrowly tailored and Kinetic
USA has not articulated compelling reasons supported by
factual findings that outweigh the public's right of access.
60-1 Exhibit J DENIED.
The Kolassa declaration states that this Exhibit contains
technical information or business practice information,
product planning data, and confidential information
belonging to Kinetic USA and related entities and that public
disclosure of this confidential information would pose a
significant threat to Kinetic USA's competitive standing.
Kinetic USA seeks to file this document under seal in its
entirety. The Court finds that Kinetic USA has not
articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings
that outweigh the public's right of access. Further, this
request is not narrowly tailored. For example, Kinetic USA
seeks to file its street address under seal. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit.
60-1 Exhibit F GRANTED.
Exhibit G The Kolassa declaration states that these exhibits contain
Exhibit K "confidential financial information and bank account identifi-Exhibit
Exhibit L cation," public disclosure of which would significantly
threaten Kinetic USA's accounts and competitive standing.
After reviewing the Exhibits and the attached declaration, the
Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently articulated
compelling reasons for sealing Exhibits F, G, K, and L.
63 Exhibit 1: Skyworks' Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks'
Opposition to Kinetic opposition brief. The Court GRANTS the motion to seal as
USA's Motion for to the following sections only:
Summary Judgment Page 8, lines 21-26.
Page 19, table displayed on lines 3-5
Page 22, lines 12-18 and lines 27-28
Page 23, lines 12-16
Except for the passages designated above, the Court DENIES
the motion to seal this document.
63 Exhibit E GRANTED.
Exhibit H Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of these
Exhibit N Exhibits, more narrowly tailored than the versions submitted
Exhibit P by Skyworks. After reviewing the declaration and the
Exhibit Z portions of the Exhibits at issue, the Court concludes that
Kinetic USA has sufficiently articulated compelling reasons
for sealing the requested portions. In addition, Kinetic USA `s
request to seal the Exhibits is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to
redact only sealable information from the Exhibits.
63 Exhibit T Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of this
Exhibit, more narrowly tailored than the version submitted by
Skyworks.
The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the following
redactions only:
Page 1
Page 2
Except for the redactions designated above, the Court
GRANTS the motion to seal this document.
63 Exhibit W DENIED.
Kinetic USA has submitted a revised redaction of this
Exhibit, more narrowly tailored than the version submitted by
Skyworks. The Court finds that Kinetic USA has not
articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings
that outweigh the public's right of access.
66 Supplemental GRANTED.
Declaration of Kin The Kolassa declaration states that the Supplemental Shum
Shum declaration contains confidential information about Kinetic
USA's technology, product development and planning and
business strategies and that the public disclosure of this
information would allow a competitor to gain an unfair
competitive advantage over Kinetic USA in the marketplace.
The declaration further states that the Shum declaration
contains confidential information regarding commercial
relationships and business strategies of Kinetic USA's foreign
affiliates and customers. Having reviewed the Kroll
declaration and the portions of the Shum Declaration at issue,
the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently
articulated compelling reasons for sealing the requested
portions. In addition, Kinetic USA's request to seal the Shum
Declaration is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to redact only
sealable information.
82 Supplemental Exhibit GRANTED.
II The Kroll declaration states this document contains
confidential financial and business practice information of
Kinetic USA and related entities and that public disclosure of
this confidential information would enable a competitor to
unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to
compete in the marketplace. After reviewing the exhibit and
the Kroll declaration, the Court concludes that Kinetic USA
has sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing
Supplemental Exhibit II.
82 Supplemental Exhibits GRANTED.
JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, The Kroll declaration states these documents contain
QQ confidential test specifications of Kinetic USA and related
entities and that public disclosure of this confidential
information would enable a competitor to unfairly compete or
attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete in the
marketplace. After reviewing the exhibits and the Kroll
declaration, the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has
sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing
Supplemental Exhibits JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, and QQ
82 Supplemental Exhibit DENIED.
OO The Kroll declaration states that this Exhibit contains
confidential test plans and product results of Kinetic USA and
related entities and that public disclosure of this confidential
information would enable a competitor to unfairly compete or
attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete in the
marketplace. Having reviewed the exhibit and the Kroll
declaration the Court finds that Kinetic USA has not
articulated compelling reasons supported by factual findings
that outweigh the public's right of access. Further, this
request is not narrowly tailored. For example, Kinetic USA
seeks to file under seal street address blocks and the dates of
the included emails. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
motion as to this Exhibit.
82 Supplemental Exhibit GRANTED.
PP The Kroll declaration states this document contains
confidential technical information and product planning and
development data belonging to Kinetic USA and related
entities and that public disclosure of this confidential
information would pose a significant threat to Kinetic USA's
competitive standing and violate the confidentiality of third
parties. After reviewing the exhibit and the Kroll declaration,
the Court concludes that Kinetic USA has sufficiently
articulated compelling reasons for sealing Supplemental
Exhibit PP. In addition, Kinetic USA's request to seal the
Exhibits is narrowly tailored, as it seeks to redact only
portions of the Exhibit.
82 Supplemental Exhibits DENIED:
RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, Docket No. 82, Skyworks' Administrative Motion to File
WW, XX, YY, ZZ under Seal, includes Supplemental Exhibits RR, SS, TT, UU,
VV, WW, XX, YY, and ZZ. Kinetic USA, the designating
party, has not filed a declaration in support of Skyworks'
motions that addresses these supplemental exhibits.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
83 Exhibit 1: Skyworks' DENIED.
Supplemental Brief Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks'
supplemental brief. Docket No. 83 ¶ 6. However, the
documents submitted to the Court are not in color and the
Court is therefore unable to determine which sections
constitute Kinetic USA's proposed redactions.
83 Exhibit 2 GRANTED:
This document is a high resolution version of Exhibit P,
discussed above.
87, 89 Exhibits LL, MM, DENIED.
NN, QQ and Cover The Kroll declaration states that these Exhibit and Cover
Emails Emails contain test plans and results for Kinetic designed
products and the Cover Emails contain references to this
confidential material and confidential information about
Kinetic USA's technology, product development and
planning which would enable a competitor to unfairly
compete or attempt to interfere with their efforts to compete
in the marketplace. Having reviewed the exhibits and cover
emails and the Kroll declaration the Court finds that Kinetic
USA has not articulated compelling reasons supported by
factual findings that outweigh the public's right of access.
Further, this request is not narrowly tailored. For example,
Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal street address blocks and
the dates of the included emails. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES the motion as to these Exhibits.
87, 89 Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to DENIED.
the Supplemental Kinetic USA seeks to file under seal data sheets for the
Declaration of Kin KTD265, KTD267, and KTD268. The Kroll declaration
Shum states that these Exhibits contain confidential technical
information about Kinetic products which would enable a
competitor to unfairly compete or attempt to interfere with
their efforts to compete in the marketplace. However, the
same documents were submitted with Docket No. 62 which
Kinetic USA did not seek to file under seal. The court
DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit.
87, 89 Exhibit 4 to the DENIED.
Supplemental The Kroll declaration states that this Exhibit contains
Declaration of Kin confidential technical information, product planning and
Shum development data and confidential information belonging to
Kinetic USA and/or related entities, the public disclosure of
which would pose a significant threat to Kinetic USA's
competitive standing and would invade the confidentiality of
third parties. The Kroll declaration states that Exhibits 1, 2,
and 3 are not susceptible to redaction, accordingly Kinetic
USA requests Exhibit 4 be accepted under seal. Kinetic USA
has not explained why Exhibit 4 is or is not susceptible to
redaction and why it should be filed under seal in its entirety.
The court DENIES the motion as to this Exhibit.
106 Exhibit 1: Skyworks' DENIED.
Supplemental Reply Kinetic USA has proposed reduced redactions to Skyworks'
Brief supplemental brief. Docket No. 106 ¶ 6. However, the
documents submitted to the Court are not in color and the
Court is therefore unable to determine which sections
constitute Kinetic USA's proposed redactions.
The parties are ORDERED to file, in the public record and not under seal, all documents and portions of documents as outlined above, unless Kinetic USA refiles its declarations, no later than March 9, 2015, in a format that articulates compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure and is narrowly tailored such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access.
Kinetic USA must also comply with the Civil Local Rules, which require the administrative motion be accompanied by a proposed order "which lists in a table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(B).
If Kinetic USA does refile its declarations in this way, the Court will consider and rule on the sealing requests. Otherwise, the parties are ORDERED to file the documents as outlined above in the public record by March 9, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
