Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2017
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS [Re: ECF 289, 291] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their oppositions to motions in limine. ECF 289, 291. For the reasons stated below, the motion at ECF 289 is GRANTED and the motion at ECF 291 is DENIED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and c
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS [Re: ECF 289, 291] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their oppositions to motions in limine. ECF 289, 291. For the reasons stated below, the motion at ECF 289 is GRANTED and the motion at ECF 291 is DENIED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and co..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
[Re: ECF 289, 291]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
This order addresses the parties' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and exhibits in support of their oppositions to motions in limine. ECF 289, 291. For the reasons stated below, the motion at ECF 289 is GRANTED and the motion at ECF 291 is DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties' sealing motions and the declarations submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons and good cause to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The Court further notes that certain but not all proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
A. ECF 289
ECF Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
289-4 Ex. 7 to Bhakar Decl. GRANTED Contains Defendants' confidential business
(Excerpts from the as to information including discussions of the internal
February 15, 2017 highlighted circuit design of Defendants ASMedia's
deposition of Miguel portions. products accused of allegedly misappropriating
Gomez) VIA's alleged trade secrets asserted in this case.
Bhakar Sealing Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 289-1.
289-6 Ex. 8 to Bhakar Decl. GRANTED Contains Defendants' confidential business
(Excerpts from the as to information including discussions of the internal
February 17, 2017 highlighted circuit design of Defendants ASMedia's
deposition of Miguel portions. products accused of allegedly misappropriating
Gomez) VIA's alleged trade secrets asserted in this case.
Bhakar Sealing Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 289-1.
B. ECF 291
ECF Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
291-4 Ex. 1 to Pickens Decl. DENIED. This exhibit is a declaration which Plaintiffs
(Declaration of Jiin Lai seek to seal in its entirety because it contains
in support of Plaintiffs' confidential business and trade secret
Opposition to information of Plaintiffs, including the research
Defendants' Motion in and design process for the trade secrets at issue.
Limine No. 1 and Pickens Sealing Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 291-1.
Daubert Motion) However, sealing the entire exhibit is not
justified because not all contents pertain to
sealable information. This request is thus not
narrowly tailored.
291-6 Ex. 2 to Pickens Decl. DENIED. This exhibit contains excerpts from an expert
(Excerpts from the deposition which Plaintiffs seek to seal in its
February 9, 2017 entirety because it contains confidential
deposition of Melissa business and trade secret information of
Bennis) Plaintiffs, including the research and design
process for the trade secrets at issue. Pickens
Sealing Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 291-1. However, sealing
the entire exhibit is not justified because not all
contents pertain to sealable information. This
request is thus not narrowly tailored.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion at ECF 289 and DENIES the motion at ECF 291. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion so to provide sufficient reasons in the supporting declarations no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
