Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS AT ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, AND 350 [Re: ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are Defendants' and Plaintiffs' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their motions and exhibits, oppositions and exhibits, and replies and exhibits in connection with the parties' Daubert motions. ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS AT ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, AND 350 [Re: ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are Defendants' and Plaintiffs' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their motions and exhibits, oppositions and exhibits, and replies and exhibits in connection with the parties' Daubert motions. ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN ..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS AT ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, AND 350
[Re: ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are Defendants' and Plaintiffs' administrative motions to file under seal portions of their motions and exhibits, oppositions and exhibits, and replies and exhibits in connection with the parties' Daubert motions. ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, 350. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 & Cty. 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. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
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." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore 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."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd 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 of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, 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. See 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.").
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)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "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." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motions and the declarations of the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated good cause and compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
A. ECF 276 (Defendants' Motion as to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony and Exhibits ("Daubert Motion"))
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
276-4 A: Daubert Motion DENIED as to portions Cites sealable material in exhibits,
quoting or substantively as discussed below, and contains
citing exhibits below or confidential information relating
portions thereof that are to the parties' licensing
non-sealable. negotiations, Defendants' licenses,
and Defendants' and Plaintiffs'
GRANTED as to technical analyses of Defendants'
remaining highlighted patents. Weinberg Decl. ISO Mot.
portions. ¶ 4 ("Weinberg Def. Mot. Decl."),
ECF 295; Reed Decl. ISO Mot. ¶
5 ("Reed Mot. Decl."), ECF 276-1.
Disclosure of such information
could cause harm to both parties.
Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or portions thereof that this Court
has determined are unsealable, the
request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a
partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
276-6 B: Expert Report of GRANTED as to Contains confidential information
Apostolos K. "Paul" ¶¶ 191, 193, 203-206. relating to the parties' licensing
Kakaes negotiations and subject to a
non-disclosure agreement between the
parties. Weinberg Def. Mot. Decl.
¶¶ 3, 5. Disclosure of the
information in these paragraphs
could cause harm to the parties.
Because Plaintiffs, the designating
parties, do not seek to seal the
remainder, Defendants are
ORDERED to file a redacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
276-8 C: Corrected Expert GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Report of Fiona M. relating to the parties' licensing
Scott Morton, Ph.D. negotiations, Defendants' licenses
and negotiations with third parties,
and Plaintiffs' internal financial
and business strategies. Weinberg
Def. Mot. Decl. ¶ 6; Reed Mot.
Decl. ¶ 7. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
276-9 D: Supplemental Expert GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Report of Fiona M. relating to the parties' licensing
Scott Morton, Ph.D. negotiations and Defendants'
internal licensing practices. Reed
Mot. Decl. ¶ 8. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
Defendants. Id.
276-10 E: Corrected Expert GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Report of Dr. Gregory relating to the parties' licensing
K. Leonard negotiations and Defendants'
licenses, including confidential
royalty and financial terms.
Weinberg Def. Mot. Decl. ¶ 7;
Reed Mot. Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure
of such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
276-11 F: Second Supplemental GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Expert Rebuttal Report relating to the parties' licensing
of Dr. Gregory K. negotiations and Defendants'
Leonard internal licensing practices. Reed
Mot. Decl. ¶ 10. Disclosure of
such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
276-12 G: Excerpts from the GRANTED as to lines Contains confidential information
Deposition Transcript 17:4-11, 18:7-19:25, relating to a confidential
of Sachin Sinha 21:1-22:25, 30:2-32:13, arbitration and consultation that
36:1-37:17, Mr. Sinha conducted at the
38:14-39:25, 45:4-49:25, direction and request of Sidley
63:15-18, 74:1-75:25, Austin and other confidential
78:2-79:25, parties. Weinberg Def. Mot. Decl.
81:8-25, 98:2-24, ¶ 8. Disclosure of such
117:1-25. information could cause harm to
Plaintiffs and third parties.
DENIED as to Because Plaintiffs, the designating
remainder. parties, do not seek to seal the
remainder, Defendants are
ORDERED to file a redacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
276-13 H: Excerpts from the GRANTED as to lines Contains confidential information
Deposition Transcript 60:10-25, 70:8-72:3, relating to a confidential
of Apostolos Kakaes 72:9-73:16, 74:6-25, arbitration and consultation
85:7-25, 130:12-25, conducted at the direction and
132:1-25, 193:9-25, request of Sidley Austin and other
200:18-201:2. confidential parties. Weinberg
Def. Mot. Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure of
DENIED as to such information could cause
remainder. harm to Plaintiffs and third parties.
Because Plaintiffs, the designating
parties, do not seek to seal the
remainder, Defendants are
ORDERED to file a redacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
276-14 I: Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Deposition Transcript relating to a confidential
of Nitin Agrawal arbitration and consultation
conducted at the direction and
request of Sidley Austin and other
confidential parties. Weinberg
Def. Mot. Decl. ¶ 10. Disclosure
of such information could cause
harm to Plaintiffs and third parties.
276-15 J: Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Corrected Rebuttal relating to Defendants' and
Expert Report of Plaintiffs' technical analyses of
Branimir Vojcic Defendants' patents. Reed Mot.
Decl. ¶ 14. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
Defendants. Id.
276-16 K: Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Corrected Rebuttal relating to Defendants' and
Expert Report of Wayne Plaintiffs' technical analyses of
Stark, Ph.D. Defendants' patents. Reed Mot.
Decl. ¶ 15. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
Defendants. Id.
276-17 L: Appendix A of the DENIED. Because Plaintiffs, the designating
Expert Report of parties, do not seek to seal this
Apostolos K. "Paul" document, Defendants are
Kakaes, bearing Bates ORDERED to file an unredacted
number version of this document in the
ASUS_0080579 public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
276-18 M: Excerpts from the DENIED. Because Plaintiffs, the designating
Deposition Transcript parties, do not seek to seal this
of Philippe Stoffel-Munck document, Defendants are
ORDERED to file an unredacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
276-19 N: Appendix B of the DENIED. Because Plaintiffs, the designating
Expert Report of parties, do not seek to seal this
Apostolos K. "Paul" document, Defendants are
Kakaes, produced by ORDERED to file an unredacted
ASUS, bearing Bates version of this document in the
number public record no earlier than 4
ASUS 0080580 days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
B. ECF 278 (Plaintiffs' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendants' Experts' Im ro er Testimony and Exhibits ("Daubert Motion"
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
278-3 A: Daubert Motion DENIED as to Cites sealable material in exhibits,
portions quoting or as discussed below, and otherwise
substantively citing contains confidential information
exhibits below or relating to the parties' licensing
portions thereof that negotiations, Plaintiffs' and
are non-sealable. Defendants' licensing strategies
and licenses and negotiations with
GRANTED as to third parties, and the confidential
remaining highlighted arbitration between the parties.
portions. Weinberg Decl. ISO Mot. ¶ 2
("Weinberg Pl. Mot. Decl."), ECF
280; Rees Decl. ISO Mot. ¶ 4
("Rees Decl."), ECF 296.
Disclosure of such information
could cause harm to both parties.
Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or portions thereof that this Court
has determined are unsealable, the
request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a
partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
278-5 C: Exh 1 — excerpts from GRANTED as to all Contains confidential information
the deposition transcript orange highlighted relating to the parties' licensing
of Defendants' expert portions in ECF 297. negotiations and Plaintiffs' and
Anne Layne-Farrar Defendants' licenses and
negotiations with third parties.
Rees Decl. ¶ 5; Weinberg Pl. Mot.
Decl. ¶ 4. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
278-6 D. Exh 2 — excerpts from GRANTED. Contains confidential information
the Corrected Rebuttal relating to the parties' licensing
Expert Report of negotiations and Plaintiffs' and
Defendants' expert Anne Defendants' licenses and
Layne-Farrar negotiations with third parties, and
the arbitration between the parties.
Rees Decl. ¶ 6; Weinberg Pl. Mot.
Decl. ¶ 5. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
278-7 E: Exh 4 — excerpts from GRANTED as to all Contains confidential information
the deposition testimony orange highlighted relating to third parties' licensing
of Defendants' expert portions in ECF 297-1. negotiations and licenses. Rees
Bertram Huber Decl. ¶ 7.
278-9 G: Exh. 5 — excerpts from DENIED. Because Defendants, the
the Opening Expert designating parties, do not seek to
Report of Defendants' seal this document, Plaintiffs are
expert Dr. Bertram ORDERED to file an unredacted
Huber version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
278-10 H: Exh. 6 — excerpts from GRANTED as to all Contains confidential information
the Rebuttal Expert orange highlighted relating to the parties' licensing
Report of Defendants' portions in ECF 297-2. negotiations and Plaintiffs' and
expert Dr. Bertram Defendants' licenses and
Huber negotiations with third parties.
Rees Decl. ¶ 9; Weinberg Pl. Mot.
Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
278-11 I: Exh. 7 — excerpts from GRANTED as to ¶¶ ¶¶ 315-316, 335-336, and 360,
the Corrected Rebuttal 315-316, 335-336, and which Plaintiffs seek to seal,
Expert Report of 360. contain confidential information
Defendants' expert relating to the parties' licensing
Jonathan D. Putnam negotiations and Plaintiffs' and
Defendants' licenses and
DENIED WITHOUT negotiations with third parties.
PREJUDICE as to Rees Decl. ¶ 10; Weinberg Pl.
remainder. Mot. Decl. ¶ 10. Disclosure of
such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
Defendants seek to seal the entire
document, but this request is
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because it is not
narrowly tailored. There are many
paragraphs throughout the report
that are not specific to Defendants
and do not contain confidential,
sensitive information.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a
partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
278-12 J: Exh. 10 — excerpts GRANTED as to all Contains confidential information
from the deposition orange highlighted relating to the parties' licensing
testimony of Defendants' portions in ECF 297-3. negotiations and Plaintiffs' and
expert Jonathan D. Defendants' licenses and
Putnam negotiations with third parties, and
the arbitration between the parties.
Rees Decl. ¶ 11; Weinberg Pl.
Mot. Decl. ¶ 11. Disclosure of
such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
278-13 K: Exh. 13 — excerpts GRANTED. Contains confidential information
from the transcript of the relating to the parties' licensing
arbitration proceeding negotiations and the arbitration
between the parties between the parties. Rees Decl. ¶
produced by ASUS 12; Weinberg Pl. Mot. Decl. ¶ 12.
bearing Bates stamps Disclosure of such information
IDC-ASUS-1716-0225382 — 437 could cause harm to both parties.
Id.
C. ECF 326 (Defendants' Motion as to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendants' Experts' Testimony and Exhibits
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
326-4 A: Defendants' DENIED as to Cites sealable material in exhibits,
Opposition to Plaintiffs' portions quoting or as discussed below, and otherwise
Daubert Motion substantively citing contains confidential information
exhibits below or relating to the parties' licensing
portions thereof that negotiations, Plaintiffs' and
are non-sealable. Defendants' licensing strategies
and licenses and negotiations with
GRANTED as to third parties, and the arbitration
remaining highlighted between the parties. Miller Decl.
portions. ISO Mot. ¶ 5 ("Miller Decl."),
ECF 326-1; Franzinger Decl. ISO
Mot. ¶ 4 ("Franzinger Decl."),
ECF 332. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or portions thereof that this Court
has determined are unsealable, the
request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a
partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
326-5 B: Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Corrected Expert relating to the parties' licensing
Report of Dr. Anne negotiations, Defendants'
Layne-Farrar licensing strategies and licenses
and negotiations with third parties,
and the arbitration between the
parties. Miller Decl. ¶ 6;
Franzinger Decl. ¶ 5. Disclosure
of such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
326-6 C: Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Corrected relating to the parties' licensing
Rebuttal Expert Report negotiations and Defendants' and
of Jonathan D. Plaintiffs' licensing strategies and
Putnam, licenses and negotiations with
third parties. Miller Decl. ¶ 7;
Franzinger Decl. ¶ 6. Disclosure
of such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
326-7 D. Excerpts from the GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Opening Expert relating to the parties' licensing
Report of Dr. Bertram negotiations and Defendants'
Huber. licensing and negotiating
strategies. Miller Decl. ¶ 8.
326-8 E: Excerpts from the DENIED. Because Plaintiffs, the designating
deposition parties, do not seek to seal this
transcript of ASUS's document, Defendants are
expert Fiona M. ORDERED to file an unredacted
Scott Morton version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
326-9 F: Excerpts from the DENIED. Because Plaintiffs, the designating
deposition parties, do not seek to seal this
transcript of ASUS's document, Defendants are
expert Philippe ORDERED to file an unredacted
Stoffel-Munck version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
D. ECF 327 (Plaintiffs' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony and Exhibits
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
327-4 A: Opposition to DENIED as to Cites sealable material in exhibits,
Defendants' Daubert portions quoting or as discussed below, and otherwise
Motion substantively citing contains confidential information
exhibits below or relating to the parties' licensing
portions thereof that negotiations, Plaintiffs' and
are non-sealable. Defendants' licensing strategies
and licenses and negotiations with
GRANTED as to third parties. Franzinger Decl.
remaining highlighted ISO Mot. ("Franzinger Opp.
portions. Decl.") ¶ 2, ECF 327-1; Rees
Decl. ISO Mot. ("Rees Opp.
Decl.") ¶ 4, ECF 333. Disclosure
of such information could cause
harm to both parties. Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or portions thereof that this Court
has determined are unsealable, the
request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a
partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
327-5 B: Exh 1 — Corrected GRANTED as to all Contains confidential information
Expert Report of green highlighted relating to the parties' licensing
Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar portions in ECF 333-2. negotiations, Defendants'
licensing strategies, and licenses
DENIED as to and negotiations with third parties.
remainder. Rees Opp. Decl. ¶ 5; Franzinger
Opp. Decl. ¶ 3. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
Because neither party seeks to seal
the remainder of the document,
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an
appropriately redacted version of
this document in the public record
no earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
327-6 C: Exh 2 — Corrected GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Rebuttal Expert Report relating to the parties' licensing
of Jonathan D. Putnam negotiations, Defendants'
licensing strategies, and licenses
and negotiations with third parties.
Rees Opp. Decl. ¶ 6; Franzinger
Opp. Decl. ¶ 4. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
327-8 D. Exh 3 — excerpts of GRANTED as to Contains confidential information
Dr. Apostolos Kakaes's entire document. relating to technical analyses of
Deposition Transcript Defendants' patents, the parties'
licensing negotiations, and
Defendants' licensing and
negotiation strategies. Franzinger
Opp. Decl. ¶ 5; Rees Opp. Decl. ¶
7. Disclosure of such information
could cause harm to both parties.
Id.
327-10 E: Exh. 4 — excerpt of DENIED. Defendants do not seek to seal this
Sachin Kumar Sinha's document, and no good cause
Deposition Transcript exists to seal the information
therein based on Plaintiffs
averments.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file
this document in the public record
no earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
327-12 F: Exh. 5 — excerpts of GRANTED as to entire Contains confidential information
Dr. Jonathan D. document. relating to technical analyses of
Putnam's Deposition Defendants' patents, the parties'
Transcript licensing negotiations, and
Defendants' licensing and
negotiation strategies. Rees Opp.
Decl. ¶ 8. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
327-14 G: Exh. 7 — excerpts of DENIED. Defendants do not seek to seal this
Nitin Agrawal's document, and no good cause
Deposition Transcript exists to seal the information
therein based on Plaintiffs
averments.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file
this document in the public record
no earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
327-15 H: Exh. 9 — excerpts of GRANTED. Contains confidential information
Dr. Jorge Padilla Expert relating to the parties' licensing
Report negotiations, Defendants'
licensing strategies, and licenses
and negotiations with third parties.
Rees Opp. Decl. ¶ 9; Franzinger
Opp. Decl. ¶ 9. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
E. ECF 336 (Defendants' Motion as to Defendants' Reply in support of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony and Exhibits
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
336-4 A: Reply in support of DENIED as to Cites sealable material in exhibits,
Defendants' Daubert portions quoting or as discussed below, and otherwise
Motion substantively citing contains confidential information
exhibits or portions of relating to the parties' licensing
briefs the Court has negotiations, Plaintiffs' and
determined in this Defendants' licensing strategies
Order are non-sealable. and licenses and negotiations with
third parties, and the confidential
arbitration between the parties.
GRANTED as to Lee Decl. ISO Reply ¶ 2, ECF
remaining highlighted 336-1; Rees Decl. ISO Reply ¶ 4,
portions. ECF 347. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
both parties. Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or briefs or portions thereof that
this Court has determined are
unsealable, the request is
DENIED.
Defendants are ORDERED to file
a partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
F. ECF 350 (Plaintiffs' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
350-4 A: Reply in support of DENIED as to Cites sealable material in exhibits,
Defendants' Daubert portions quoting or as discussed below, and otherwise
Motion substantively citing contains confidential information
exhibits or portions of relating to the parties' licensing
briefs the Court has negotiations, Plaintiffs' and
determined in this Defendants' licensing strategies,
Order are non-sealable. licenses and negotiations with
third parties, the confidential
arbitration between the parties,
GRANTED as to and confidential legal
remaining highlighted consultations.
portions. Miller Decl. ISO Reply ¶ 5, ECF
350-1; Franzinger Decl. ISO Pl.
Reply ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 354.
Disclosure of such information
could cause harm to both parties.
Id.
To the extent the redacted portions
quote or substantively cite exhibits
or briefs or portions thereof that
this Court has determined are
unsealable, the request is
DENIED.
Defendants are ORDERED to file
a partially redacted version of this
document in the public record no
earlier than 4 days and no later
than 10 days from the date of this
order.
350-5 B: Reed Decl., Ex. 16 GRANTED as to lines Contains confidential information
Excerpts from the 46:7-23, 51:8-20, relating to a confidential
deposition transcript of 52:16-19, 67:16-25, arbitration and consultation that
ASUS's expert Sachin 68:1-8, 151:8-22. Mr. Sinha conducted at the
Kumar Sinha, dated direction and request of Sidley
July 10, 2018 DENIED as to Austin and other confidential
remainder. parties. Franzinger Decl. ¶¶ 5.
Disclosure of such information
could cause harm to Plaintiffs and
third parties.
Because Plaintiffs, the designating
parties, do not seek to seal the
remainder, Defendants are
ORDERED to file a redacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
350-6 C: Reed Decl., Ex. 19 GRANTED as to lines Contains confidential information
Excerpts from the 76:6-77:12, 79:9-80:1, relating to a confidential
deposition transcript of and Exhibit 6 at pages arbitration and a confidential
ASUS's expert 1-3. consultation that Mr. Kakaes
Apostolos Kakaes, conducted at the direction and
dated July 13, 2018 DENIED as to request of third parties and/or law
remainder. firms in a prior matter. Franzinger
Decl. ¶ 6. Disclosure of such
information could cause harm to
Plaintiffs and third parties.
Because Plaintiffs, the designating
parties, do not seek to seal the
remainder, Defendants are
ORDERED to file a redacted
version of this document in the
public record no earlier than 4
days and no later than 10 days
from the date of this order.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motions at ECF 276, 278, 326, 327, 336, and 350 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied, if the designating party has not already publicly submitted the properly redacted version of the documents, 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 from the filing of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
