ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3353, 3395, 3400, 3415

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Plaintiff Apple Inc. ("Apple"), ECF Nos. 3400, 3415, and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung"), ECF Nos. 3353, 3395. The parties seek to seal (1) Apple's exhibits to the parties' Joint Submission on Proposed Verdict Form, ECF No. 3402; (2) the revised per product/per patent damages exhibits of Apple's damages expert, ECF No. 3400-5; (3) two exhibits filed in connection with Samsung's Motion to Introduce at the Damages Retrial Evidence Created After the July 2012 Trial ("Samsung's Motion to Introduce Evidence"), ECF No. 3352; (4) two exhibits and a portion of the brief submitted in connection with Samsung's Motions in Limine, ECF No. 3395-3; and (5) a portion of the brief submitted in connection with Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion in Limine No. 2, ECF No. 3415-3.

"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)). Thus, 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 motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action," Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.

Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case," are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of a case must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. The "good cause" standard requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of "a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of "trade secrets" set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that "[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). "Generally [a trade secret] relates to the production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business. . . ." Id. (ellipses in original). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used "as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

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, 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. at 79-5(d)(1).

With the exception of Apple's motion to file under seal two exhibits supporting Apple's proposed verdict form, ECF No. 3400, the parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits filed largely in connection with motions in limine or otherwise relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial. In a previous appeal in the instant case, the Federal Circuit applied the rule in Kamakana and concluded that the "good cause" standard applies to requests to file under seal documents related to motions regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1222-23 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court applies the "good cause" standard to the instant motions to file under seal, except for Apple's motion to file under seal two exhibits supporting Apple's proposed verdict form, ECF No. 3400. As to the motion to file under seal two exhibits supporting Apple's proposed verdict form, the Court applies the "compelling reasons" standard because Apple's proposed verdict form is "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action." Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.

Furthermore, the Court rules on the instant motions in accordance with the Federal Circuit's prior holding that certain of the financial, licensing, and manufacturing capacity information at issue in the instant motions is sealable under both the "good cause" and "compelling reasons" standards. Id. at 1226-29.

With the appropriate standards and the Federal Circuit's guidance in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.