AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Case No. 22-cv-04826-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL [Re: ECF No. 451] Defendant.
On June 14, 2023, AGIS filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and related exhibits. ECF No. 451. The Court denied AGIS’s motion and directed AGIS to refile by September 4, 2023. See ECF No. 460. AGIS did not refile. Upon further consideration, the Court recognizes that its order (ECF No. 460) may have been unclear. Thus, in the interest of efficiency, the Court reconsiders its prior ruling and GRANTS AGIS’s Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 451. “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 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, 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). The documents at issue in AGIS’s motion to seal are associated with AGIS’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. These documents concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). AGIS argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal that disclose: “source code and technical information regarding the Accused Products that have been designated highly confidential by Defendants”; “confidential communications regarding settlement discussions and/or negotiations”; “confidential business information”; and “technical functionality of the Accused Products.” ECF No. 451. Defendant Google does not object to the sealing of any of the documents in its response. ECF No. 454. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the identified portions of each (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Accordingly, AGIS’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 451) is GRANTED. The Court finds that AGIS’s request is not narrowly tailored because it seeks to seal several documents in their entirety. Furthermore, the Court notes that AGIS should have filed separate motions regarding sealing of its own material and Defendants’ material. The Court will overlook the failure for this motion. However, future failures to comply with the standing order may result in denial of a motion to seal with prejudice.
ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling ECF Plaintiff AGIS Highlighted Portions at: Granted, as the highlighted portions 451-3 Software • Page 4: lines 8, 10, disclose information from Exhibits A- Development 14; J, Z-DD, TT-WW, and BBB-DDD LLC’s Response • Page 7: lines 5-8, 15- to AGIS’s Response in Opposition to in Opposition 17; Defendants’ Motion for Summary to Defendants’ • Page 10: lines 10-13; Judgment (Dkt. 434), which AGIS Motion for • Page 11: lines 18-21, and/or Defendants have designated as Summary • 22-24; highly confidential / RESTRICTED Judgment ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY. These • Page 12: lines 14-18; highlighted portions contain highly • Page 13: line 26; confidential source code, settlement • Page 14: lines 6-8, discussions and/or negotiations, and 10; testimony from party witnesses. • Page 15: lines 16-27;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Case No. 22-cv-04826-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL [Re: ECF No. 451] Defendant.
On June 14, 2023, AGIS filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and related exhibits. ECF No. 451. The Court denied AGIS’s motion and directed AGIS to refile by September 4, 2023. See ECF No. 460. AGIS did not refile. Upon further consideration, the Court recognizes that its order (ECF No. 460) may have been unclear. Thus, in the interest of efficiency, the Court reconsiders its prior ruling and GRANTS AGIS’s Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 451. “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 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, 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). The documents at issue in AGIS’s motion to seal are associated with AGIS’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. These documents concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). AGIS argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal that disclose: “source code and technical information regarding the Accused Products that have been designated highly confidential by Defendants”; “confidential communications regarding settlement discussions and/or negotiations”; “confidential business information”; and “technical functionality of the Accused Products.” ECF No. 451. Defendant Google does not object to the sealing of any of the documents in its response. ECF No. 454. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the identified portions of each (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). Accordingly, AGIS’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 451) is GRANTED. The Court finds that AGIS’s request is not narrowly tailored because it seeks to seal several documents in their entirety. Furthermore, the Court notes that AGIS should have filed separate motions regarding sealing of its own material and Defendants’ material. The Court will overlook the failure for this motion. However, future failures to comply with the standing order may result in denial of a motion to seal with prejudice.
ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling ECF Plaintiff AGIS Highlighted Portions at: Granted, as the highlighted portions 451-3 Software • Page 4: lines 8, 10, disclose information from Exhibits A- Development 14; J, Z-DD, TT-WW, and BBB-DDD LLC’s Response • Page 7: lines 5-8, 15- to AGIS’s Response in Opposition to in Opposition 17; Defendants’ Motion for Summary to Defendants’ • Page 10: lines 10-13; Judgment (Dkt. 434), which AGIS Motion for • Page 11: lines 18-21, and/or Defendants have designated as Summary • 22-24; highly confidential / RESTRICTED Judgment ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY. These • Page 12: lines 14-18; highlighted portions contain highly • Page 13: line 26; confidential source code, settlement • Page 14: lines 6-8, discussions and/or negotiations, and 10; testimony from party witnesses. • Page 15: lines 16-27;
• Page 18: lines 20-26; Furthermore, revealing the identity and • Page 20: lines 6-8, nature of settlement discussions and/or 15-20; negotiations with AGIS would be • Page 24: lines 10, harmful if its contents became known to 12-13, 18-24, 27-28; competitors of the parties, would cause • Page 25: lines 3, 12- parties harm. 13, 17-20. Finally, disclosure of source code of Defendants that Defendants have designated highly confidential, and testimony from party witnesses regarding the functionality of the designated highly confidential by Defendants would be harmful to Defendants, and if its contents became known to competitors of Defendants, would cause competitive harm. ECF Ex. A to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-4 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. B to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-5 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. C to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-6 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Joseph C. McAlexander III, the Opposition to technical expert of AGIS Software. Mr. Defendants’ McAlexander’s testimony includes Motion for information regarding the functionality Summary of the Accused Products, and contents Judgment of documents and source code of the Accused Products which have been designated highly confidential by Defendants. ECF Ex. D to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-7 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. E to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-8 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary ECF Ex. F to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-9 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. G to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-10 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. H to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-11 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. I to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-12 Software’s source code and technical information Response in regarding the Accused Products that Opposition to have been designated highly Defendants’ confidential by Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment ECF Ex. J to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-13 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Yuval Shmuelevitz, the corporate Opposition to witness of Waze Mobile Limited. Mr. Defendants’ Shmuelevitz’s testimony includes Motion for technical information regarding the Summary functionality of the Waze Accused Judgment Products, and contents of documents and source code of the Waze Accused Products, which Defendants have designated highly confidential. ECF Ex. Z to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-14 Software’s confidential communications regarding Response in settlement discussions and/or Opposition to negotiations between AGIS Software Motion for nature of settlement discussions and/or Summary negotiations with AGIS would be Judgment harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. AA to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-15 Software’s confidential business information Response in regarding third- party Advanced Opposition to Ground Information Systems’ product, Defendants’ LifeRing. Disclosure of this Motion for confidential business information Summary would be harmful to Advanced Ground Judgment Information Systems if its contents became known to competitors of the Advanced Ground Information Systems, because it includes confidential technical information. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. BB to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-16 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Summary discussions and/or negotiations Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. CC to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-17 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Summary discussions and/or negotiations Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. DD to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-18 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Summary discussions and/or negotiations Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. TT to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-19 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. UU to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-20 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Summary discussions and/or negotiations Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. VV to AGIS Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-21 Software’s excerpts of the deposition testimony of Response in Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Opposition to witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Defendants’ testimony includes information Motion for regarding confidential settlement Summary discussions and/or negotiations Judgment between AGIS Software and Google. Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. WW to Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-22 AGIS excerpts of the deposition testimony of Software’s Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the corporate Response in witness of AGIS. Mr. Beyer’s Opposition to testimony includes information Defendants’ regarding confidential settlement Motion for discussions and/or negotiations Summary between AGIS Software and Google. Judgment Revealing the identity and nature of settlement discussions and/or negotiations with AGIS would be harmful if its contents became known to competitors of the parties, would cause parties harm, and also violate the Fed. R. Evid. 408. See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 12324116, at *19 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a draft license agreement with a third party). Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. ECF Ex. BBB to Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-23 AGIS excerpts of the deposition testimony of Software’s Andrew Lookingbill, the corporate Response in witness of Waze Mobile Limited. Mr. Opposition to Lookingbill’s testimony includes Defendants’ information regarding the corporate Motion for structure and/or identities of Summary employees of Defendants, which Judgment Defendants have designated highly confidential. ECF Ex. CCC to Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-24 AGIS excerpts of the deposition testimony of Software’s Micah Mason, the corporate witness of Response in Defendants. Mr. Mason’s testimony Opposition to includes information regarding the Defendants’ technical functionality of the Accused Motion for Products, and contents of documents Summary and source code of the Accused Judgment Products, which Defendants have designated highly confidential. ECF Ex. DDD to Entire Document Granted, as this document discloses 451-25 AGIS excerpts of the deposition testimony of I Response in Defendants. Mr. Secor’s testimony Opposition to includes information regarding the 2 Defendants’ technical functionality of the Accused Motion for Products, and contents of documents 3 Summary and source code of the Accused Judgment Products, which Defendants have 4 designated highly confidential. 5 Il. ORDER 6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AGIS’s Motion to Seal at ECF 7 ! No. 451 is GRANTED. 8 9 Dated: September 6, 2023
BETH LABSON FREEMAN 11 United States District Judge 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28