Home/N.D. California/Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided June 5, 2023·No. 3:20-cv-04677·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9

10 NETFLIX INC, Defendant. 11

12 This order addresses another set of sealing motions, mostly related to material that 13 plaintiffs have claimed as confidential. Dkt. Nos. 302, 318, 331, 346, 364, 373, 378, 401. The 14 Court discussed the applicable standards in a prior sealing order. See Dkt. No. 335 at 1. In sum, a 15 particularized showing of good cause is required to seal documents related to non-dispositive 16 motions, and a compelling reason supported by specific facts is needed before the Court will 17 consider sealing records involving dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 18 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978- 19 JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). General assertions of potential competitive or 20 commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact 21 that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order 22 is also not enough to justify sealing.” In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 23 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). The Court’s sealing determinations are stated in the attached chart. 24 See Ex. A. 25 For the sealing requests that are denied, plaintiffs mostly offer perfunctory claims that the 26 documents at issue contain confidential information which should be shielded from public view. 27 For example, they say that certain documents contain “information . . . that is used by Plaintiffs to 1 Plaintiffs’ invention-disclosure and review procedures.” Dkt. No. 308-1 96. Plaintiffs also made 2 || conclusory statements about the competitive harm that they will suffer if this information is 3 || disclosed. See, e.g., id. (“Public disclosure of such information could unfairly allow competitors 4 || to obtain access to Plaintiffs’ internal patent processes. The risk of competitive harm to Plaintiffs, 5 in particular, greatly outweighs the minimal presumption of public access in this situation.”’). 6 || “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example do not explain how a 7 competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are insufficient for sealing.” 8 DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 75734, at *1. This is all the more true when the information sought to be 9 sealed appears in an answer to the complaint. See In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. at 1107 10 || (noting that complaints are “the documents that are the heart of . . . every[] lawsuit”). 11 The “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for the documents, or portions thereof, 12 || that the Court declines to seal. /d. at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are 13 || directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant documents on ECF within 7 days of this order. 14 |] Civ. LR. 79-5(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: June 5, 2023

18 JAMEYPDONATO 19 United{f tates District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal 1

2 Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling 3 sought to be sealed sealing 4 Netflix’s Highlighted Contains confidential Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was 5 Motion for portions of pages 6, information about more narrowly tailored to seal Leave to 8, 10, and 11 plaintiffs’ internal highlighted portions of pages 8 6 Amend Answer patent applications and 11, see Dkt. No. 308 at 2; to Third and procedures. (See Dkt. No. 309-1, but they do not 7 Amended Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 6- adequately explain how Complaint, Dkt. 7) disclosure of this material 8 No. 302-3 would cause competitive harm. 9 Exhibit H to Entirety Contains confidential Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was 10 Malhotra Decl. information about more narrowly tailored to seal ISO Netflix’s plaintiffs’ internal highlighted portions of pages 11 Motion for patent applications 65-68, see Dkt. No. 308 at 2, Leave to and procedures. (See but they do not adequately 12 Amend, Dkt. Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 6- explain how disclosure of this No. 302-4 7) material would cause 13 competitive harm. 14 Exhibit I to Entirety Contains citations and Denied. Plaintiffs did not ask 15 Malhotra Decl. references to content to seal this material in their ISO Netflix’s that plaintiffs have response. (See Dkt. No. 308 at 16 Motion for designated highly 2) Leave to confidential or 17 Amend, Dkt. confidential during 18 No. 302-4 discovery. (See Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶ 3) 19 Exhibit K to Entirety Contains confidential Denied. Plaintiffs do not 20 Malhotra Decl. information about explain how the form, if ISO Netflix’s plaintiffs’ internal disclosed, could be used by 21 Motion for patent applications competitors, or how disclosure Leave to and procedures. (See would otherwise cause 22 Amend, Dkt. Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 6- competitive harm. 23 No. 302-4 7) 24 Exhibit N to Highlighted Contains confidential Denied. Plaintiffs’ request was Malhotra Decl. portions of pages information about more narrowly tailored to seal 25 ISO Netflix’s 40-43 plaintiffs’ internal highlighted portions of pages Motion for patent applications 41-43, but they have not 26 Leave to and procedures. (See provided an adequate Amend, Dkt. Dkt. No. 308-1 ¶¶ 6- justification for sealing this 27 No. 302-4 7) material in connection with an 1 Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling sought to be sealed sealing 2 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains confidential Denied. Plaintiffs do not 3 Response to portions of pages 8- information about adequately explain how Motion for 9 plaintiffs’ internal disclosure of this material 4 Leave to patent applications would cause competitive harm. 5 Amend Answer, and procedures. (See Dkt. No. 318-2 Dkt. No. 318-1 ¶¶ 6- 6 7) 7 Netflix’s Reply Highlighted Contains citations and Denied. No further showing in Support of portions of pages 3 references to content was made by plaintiffs to 8 Motion for and 5 that plaintiffs have demonstrate why the Leave to designated highly highlighted portions of the 9 Amend Answer, confidential or answer should be sealed. And, 10 Dkt. No. 331-3 confidential during as discussed above, plaintiffs discovery. (See Dkt. did not provide an adequate 11 No. 331-1 ¶ 3) justification for sealing related material. 12 Netflix’s First Highlighted Contains citations and Denied. No further showing 13 Amended portions of pages references to content was made by plaintiffs to Answer to 40-43 that plaintiffs have demonstrate why the 14 Plaintiffs’ Third designated highly highlighted portions of the 15 Amended confidential or answer should be sealed. And, Complaint, Dkt. confidential during as discussed above, plaintiffs’ 16 No. 346-3 discovery. (See Dkt. did not provide an adequate No. 346-1 ¶ 3) justification for sealing portions 17 of pages 41-43. 18 Exhibit A to Highlighted Contains confidential Granted. Plaintiffs have 19 Joint Stipulation portions of pages 2, information about adequately explained that for Leave to 3, 5, and 6 plaintiffs’ use of its disclosure of this material could 20 File Joint patent-management place it at a competitive Discovery database, revealing disadvantage in licensing and 21 Letter Brief, analyses of its patents asserting their patents. Dkt. No. 364-3 for licensing and 22 assertion purposes. 23 (See Dkt. No. 368-1 ¶¶ 6-8) 24 Joint Discovery Highlighted Contains confidential Granted. Sealing is warranted 25 Letter Brief, portions of pages 2, information about for the same reason as Dkt. No. Dkt. No. 373-2 3, 5, and 6 plaintiffs’ use of its 364-3. 26 patent-management database, revealing 27 analyses of its patents 1 Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling sought to be sealed sealing 2 assertion purposes. 3 (See Dkt. No. 376-1 ¶¶ 6-8) 4 5 6 Exhibit I to Entire document Contains information Granted in part. Oracle Hoyos Decl.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc. (Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.