Filed: Aug. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 116, 117, 131, 144. JAMES DONATO , District Judge . In this patent action, plaintiff Johnstech International Corp. ("Johnstech") and defendant JF Microtechnology SDN BHD ("JFM") have filed several administrative motions to seal portions of their summary judgment and sanctions briefing under Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court grants and denies the requests as detailed in this order. I. STANDARDS In our circuit, a
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 116, 117, 131, 144. JAMES DONATO , District Judge . In this patent action, plaintiff Johnstech International Corp. ("Johnstech") and defendant JF Microtechnology SDN BHD ("JFM") have filed several administrative motions to seal portions of their summary judgment and sanctions briefing under Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court grants and denies the requests as detailed in this order. I. STANDARDS In our circuit, a p..
More
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 116, 117, 131, 144.
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
In this patent action, plaintiff Johnstech International Corp. ("Johnstech") and defendant JF Microtechnology SDN BHD ("JFM") have filed several administrative motions to seal portions of their summary judgment and sanctions briefing under Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court grants and denies the requests as detailed in this order.
I. STANDARDS
In our circuit, a party seeking to seal documents filed in connection with a dispositive motion must establish "compelling reasons" to overcome a historically "strong presumption of access to judicial records." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotes omitted). This standard presents a "high threshold," and "a `good cause' showing will not, without more, satisfy" it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). To meet the "compelling reasons" standard, a party seeking to seal material must show specific, individualized reasons for the sealing, "`without relying on hypothesis or conjecture,'" such as "`whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.'" See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679, 679 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)). The Ninth Circuit has found the compelling reasons standard met by "pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms" in a license agreement, as these are trade secrets used in the party's business, conferring an opportunity to obtain advantage over competitors who do not know or use them. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applying this standard and sealing "detailed product-specific financial information" and "profit, cost, and margin data" that "could give the suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations, which they could use to extract price increases for components"). However, "[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. In particular, "[a]n unsupported assertion of `unfair advantage' to competitors without explaining `how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage' is insufficient." Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015) (quoting Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing request must also "be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material," and "establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). When ordering sealing, the district court must "articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal." Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
II. DETERMINATIONS
Many of the requests here fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 because they were not filed with an unredacted version showing "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). While the sealing requests could have been denied on that ground, the Court undertook the burden of comparing the unredacted and redacted copies mainly to move this case to resolution without further delay. But the parties are advised that any future motions to seal will be summarily denied if Local Rule 79-5, or the Court's prior orders on sealing requests, are not followed to the letter.
This table summarizes the administrative motions to seal that the Court rules on in this order:
Motion (Dkt. No.) Documents Sought to be Sealed (by Dkt. No.) Party Declaration in
Support (by Dkt.
No.)
113 113-14 to 113-22 — Exhibits B, F, G, I, J to Merrill 113-1, 113-13
Declaration 114
113-12 — Portions of Johnstech's Summary Judgment
Motion referencing these Exhibits
116 116-13 to 116-22 — Exhibits 2, 4-8, 8A, 9, 14, 15 to 116-1
Merrill Declaration 130
116-12 — Portions of Johnstech's Opposition to JFM's
Summary Judgment Motion referencing these Exhibits
117 117-2, -6, -8, -10 — Exhibits B, G, I, J to Hayes 117-1
Declaration
131 131-5 — Exhibit E to Second Merrill Declaration 131-1
131-4 — Reply Memorandum referring to Exhibit E
144 144-4 and -6 — Exhibits B and C to Hansen Declaration 144-1
in Support of JFM's Response re Discovery Sanctions
A. Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Support of Johnstech's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 113)
Johnstech states that it filed these documents under seal because they were designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorney's Eyes Only" by JFM under the protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 113. JFM filed a declaration with facts supporting the sealing request. Dkt. No. 114.
Document JFM's Basis for Sealing Ruling
(Dkt. No. 114)
113-14 Identifies shared customers and Granted. The exhibit details product-specific
(Exhibit B) contains confidential information customer data that could be
on specific amounts of JFM's used to the company's competitive
business attributable to those disadvantage. See Apple, 727 F.3d at
customers over specific periods 1228.
of time.
113-15 Identifies customers targeted by Granted. The customer information
(Exhibit F) Johnstech and provides financial qualifies as trade secrets and the
information that could be used redactions are narrowly tailored to seal
by others to disadvantage JFM. just this information. See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
113-16 Confidentiality assertion Denied.
(Exhibit G) withdrawn
113-17 to Expert report with nonpublic Granted in part. Sealed to the extent it
113-21 financial information about contains detailed sales information for
(Exhibit I) JFM's sales and profits related to customers that could be used to the
specific customers. JFM seeks company's competitive disadvantage.
to seal certain redacted portions See Apple, 727 F.3d at 1228. The
of the report as shown in Dkt. request to seal redacted portions in Dkt.
No. 114-2, and Schedule and No. 114-2, and Schedule and Appendix
Appendix 1 to the report in their 1, is granted. The request is denied
entirety. JFM does not seek to otherwise. JFM also states that is
seal the report's attachments. withdrawing this Exhibit and will not
Dkt. No. 114 ¶¶ 6-10. rely upon it further in this case.
113-22 Confidentiality assertion Denied.
(Exhibit J) withdrawn
113-12 No further response. Granted in part. Granted to the extent
(Motion that the Court has permitted sealing of
referencing the Exhibits, and denied otherwise.
these
Exhibits)
B. Johnstech's Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Opposition of JFM's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 116)
Johnstech filed a motion to seal Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8A, 9, 14, and 15 to its Opposition to JFM's summary judgment motion, and portions of its Opposition referencing them, because the Exhibit materials were designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorney's Eyes Only" by JFM or third party IDI under the protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 116 at 3. JFM filed a declaration addressing the sealing of all exhibits except Exhibit 2. Dkt. No. 130.
Document JFM's Response Ruling
(Dkt. No. 130)
116-13 (Exhibit 2) No response. Denied. The parties have not
provided adequate justification for
sealing this document. IDI has not
filed any declaration in support of
sealing as required by the Local
Rule.
116-14 (Exhibit 4) Confidentiality assertion withdrawn Denied.
116-15 (Exhibit 5) Confidentiality assertion withdrawn Denied.
116-16 Confidentiality assertion withdrawn Denied.
(Exhibit 6)
116-17 (Exhibit 7) Confidentiality assertion withdrawn Denied.
116-18 (Exhibit 8) Confidentiality assertion withdrawn Denied.
116-19 (Exhibit 8A) JFM requests that this document be Granted. The proposed
sealed in part because it redactions in Dkt. No. 30-1 are
contains identification of JFM's narrowly tailored to prevent
customers and their employees. specific identification of customers
JFM contends this is "highly and employees, while opening to
sensitive business information that the public specific details on
is not publicly available and could Johnstech's communications with
be used by others to obtain unfair them.
advantage in competition and/or
negotiations with JFM." Dkt. No.
130 ¶ 7.
116-20 (Exhibit 9) JFM requests that this document be Granted. The document contains
sealed in its entirety because it notes from specific customer visits
contains identification of JFM and competitive intelligence
customers and confidential gathered from them that qualifies
correspondence with a customer as trade secrets used in the party's
targeted by Johnstech as "highly business, establishing compelling
sensitive business information that reasons to seal the document. In
is not publicly available and could re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
be used by others to obtain unfair
advantage in competition and/or
negotiations with JFM."
116-21 (Exhibit 14) JFM requests that this document be Granted with respect to the
sealed in its entirety because it identities and contact
contains identification of JFM's information of individuals and
customers targeted by Johnstech otherwise denied.
and related information
reflecting the damage to JFM's
business caused by Johnstech's
False Letter.
116-22 (Exhibit 15) JFM requests that this document be Granted. The exhibit details
sealed in its entirety because customer-specific sales data that
contains identification of JFM's qualifies as trade secrets
customers targeted by Johnstech information used in the party's
and related JFM financial business, establishing compelling
information reflecting the damage reasons to seal the document. In
to JFM's business caused by re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
Johnstech's False Letter.
>116-12 (Motion JFM seeks sealing of the Summary Granted in part. Granted to the
referencing Judgment Opposition brief to the extent it seeks sealing of
abovementioned extent it contains and refers to references to Exhibits that the
materials) highly confidential JFM business Court has ordered sealed. Neither
information, including page 20, party has provided justification for
lines 8, 13-14, 16 and 18, as these sealing the Opposition brief more
sections contain identification of broadly.
JFM's customers targeted by
Johnstech's False Letter. Johnstech's request to seal the
portions of the Opposition brief
redacted in Dkt. No. 116-3 is
granted to the extent the redactions
pertain to information that the
Court has ordered sealed, and
denied otherwise.
JFM's request to redact specific
customer names and the
percentage of business to those
customers in page 20, lines 8, 13-14,
16 and 18 of the brief is
granted.
C. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to Hayes Declaration In Support of Defendant's Opposition to Johnstech's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 117)
JFM indicates that these portions of documents were filed under seal because they "contain and refer" to information designated highly confidential by plaintiff Johnstech or defendant JFM. Dkt. No. 117.
Document JFM's Argument Ruling
(Dkt. No. 117-1)
117-4 (Exhibit B) Exhibit B identifies JFM's Granted. The particular customer
customers targeted by Johnstech's information qualifies as trade
False Letter. secrets that JFM has compelling
reasons to seal, and the redactions
are narrowly tailored to seal just
this information. See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
117-6 (Exhibit G) Exhibit G identifies JFM's Granted. The particular customer
customers targeted by Johnstech's information qualifies as trade
False Letter. secrets that JFM has compelling
reasons to seal, and the redactions
are narrowly tailored to seal just
this information. See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
117-8 (Exhibit I) Exhibit I identifies JFM's Granted. The particular customer
customers targeted by Johnstech's information qualifies as trade
False Letter. secrets that JFM has compelling
reasons to seal, and the redactions
are narrowly tailored to seal just
this information. See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
117-10 (Exhibit J) Exhibit J refers to proprietary JFM Granted. See In re Elec. Arts,
product design information, 298 F. App'x at 569.
including product component
features unique to the Zigma
product line.
D. Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Support of Plaintiff's Reply on Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 131)
Johnstech states that the documents filed at Dkt. Nos. 131-4 and 131-5 were filed under seal because they contain material designated "Highly Confidential — Attorney's Eyes Only" by JFM under the protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 131. JFM has withdrawn its confidentiality assertions for these materials. Dkt. No. 137. Accordingly, the motion to seal is denied. The Clerk is directed to remove the confidentiality lock on the two documents and make them available to the public.
E. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits to Hansen Declaration In Support of Defendant's Response to Johnstech's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. No. 144)
JFM seeks to redact portions of depositions of two JFM employees that contain information designated highly confidential by JFM. Dkt. No. 144. JFM seeks sealing of the identity of certain customers and their employees who were "targeted by Johnstech's False Letter and confidential information regarding changes in those customers' purchases from JFM." Dkt. No. 144-1.
Document JFM's Argument Ruling
(Dkt. No. 144-1)
144-4 (Exhibit B) Exhibit B refers to JFM's Granted. The particular customer
customers re Johnstech's False information qualifies as trade
Letter and customer purchases from secrets that JFM has compelling
JFM. reasons to seal, and the redactions
are narrowly tailored to seal just
this information See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569.
144-6 (Exhibit C) Exhibit C refers to JFM's Granted. The particular customer
customers re Johnstech's False information qualifies as trade
Letter and customer purchases from secrets that JFM has compelling
JFM. reasons to seal, and the redactions
are narrowly tailored to seal just
this information See In re Elec.
Arts, 298 F. App'x at 569
CONCLUSION
Within fourteen days of this order, the parties should file unredacted documents or documents with revised redactions, as necessary to comply with this order, in the public record of this case. If the parties do not file new copies of the affected documents by this deadline, the Court will unseal the versions previously filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
