Filed: Oct. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2015
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 768, 777, 784, 791) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Before the court are four motions to file seven documents under seal. 1 "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" 2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." 3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records rel
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 768, 777, 784, 791) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Before the court are four motions to file seven documents under seal. 1 "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" 2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." 3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records rela..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 768, 777, 784, 791)
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court are four motions to file seven documents under seal.1 "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point."3 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.4
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."5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.6 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).7 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"8 that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.9 "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice.10 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 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.12
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)."13 "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."14
With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows:
Motion Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation
Docket No. UMI's Trial Brief UNSEALED. No declaration filed in support.
768-4
Docket No. GSI's Motion in Limine Designations Only sealed portions narrowly
777-4 No. 6 to Exclude highlighted in tailored to confidential business
Evidence and Argument yellow at information and supported by a
of GSI's 2007 and 2008 2:12-14, declaration.
Investigation of UMI 4:13-15,
4:21-26 SEALED;
remainder
UNSEALED.
Docket No. May 8, 2015 Expert Designations Sealed portions previously
784-4 Report of Robert J. highlighted in sealed by court order as
Murphy yellow SEALED. narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.15
Docket No. Deposition of Robert J. UNSEALED. No declaration filed in support.
784-6 Murphy
Docket No. UMI's Omnibus Motion UNSEALED No declaration filed in support.
791-2 in Limine
Docket No. Ex. 1 to UMI's Omnibus Designations Only sealed portions narrowly
791-5 Motion in Limine, July specified at tailored to confidential business
24, 2015 deposition of 209:4-210:17; information and supported by a
Paul Mphor Chiang 227:23-228:9; declaration.
229:13-23;
233:23-234:25;
235:9-12;
236:19-237:2;
240:3-24;
241:25-242:6;
242:14-243:5;
244:8-245:8;
249:12-250:14;
252:10-14;
252:19-253:12;
258:7-259:20;
260:7-14;
261:10-17;
263:1-18;
267:7-15;
268:11-25;
269:9-270:13;
272:12-273:3;
283:23-284:17;
288:6-9;
293:9-15;
302:8-16;
335:17-336:10;
340:3-342:13
343:16-345:15; and
346:20-347:5
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Docket No. Ex. 2 to UMI's Omnibus Designations Only sealed portions narrowly
791-7 Motion in Limine, July specified at tailored to confidential business
17, 2015 deposition of 134:22-135:4; information and supported by a
Robert J. Murphy 135:9-24; declaration.
136:1-4;
136:12-137:11;
137:25-138:7;
138:22-139:4;
139:16-140:13;
150:2-151:9;
151:22-152:9;
154:7-9;
155:11-14;
156:8-16;
156:24-157:24;
160:10-162:5;
165:8-167:2;
168:5-22;
177:11-179:20;
182:13-184:5;
184:10-21;
185:1-16;
258:16-260:25;
338:1-24;
360:23-363:7;
364:18-365:11; and
368:5-368:25
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
SO ORDERED.