Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 55 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 55) which were filed in connection with Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 52) and Defendant's Reply in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 56). "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public r
Summary: ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 55 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 55) which were filed in connection with Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 52) and Defendant's Reply in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 56). "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public re..
More
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 55
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 55) which were filed in connection with Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 52) and Defendant's Reply in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 56).
"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) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist "when such `court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, "[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006).
In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, 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." Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" and that "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," as well as an "unredacted version of the document" that "indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Id.
With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling
50 50-4 Xilinx's Opposition to Papst's GRANTED as to the proposed
Motion to Dismiss redactions at 7:4-5 and 7:9-24;
otherwise DENIED WITH
PREJUDICE because the
material sought to be sealed is
not sealable.
51 51-2 Gonder Declaration in Support DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
of Xilinx's Opposition to Papst's because the material sought to
Motion to Dismiss be sealed is not sealable.
51 51-3 Exhibit 26, printouts from public DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
websites. because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable and
Defendant's supporting
declaration did not indicate
otherwise.
51 51-4 Exhibit 27, printouts from public DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
websites. because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable and
Defendant's supporting
declaration did not indicate
otherwise.
51 51-5 Exhibit 28, Licensing Candidate DENIED WITHOUT
Overview slide deck. PREJUDICE because the
request is not "narrowly
tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Defendant should identify
which specific portions of this
Exhibit that it seeks to seal.
51 51-6 Exhibit 29, Patent Purchase DENIED WITHOUT
Agreement. PREJUDICE because the
request is not "narrowly
tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
Defendant should identify
which specific portions of this
Exhibit that it seeks to seal.
51 51-7 Exhibit 30, Letter from FTE to DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Rambus. because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable.
55 55-4 Defendant's Reply In Support of DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Motion to Dismiss because the material sought to
be sealed is not sealable.
If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
