Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CELLWITCH INC., Case No. 19-cv-01315-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 TILE, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 162, 185, 192, 197, 199 Defendant. 11

12 13 Pending before the Court are the Parties’ various requests to seal portions of their briefing 14 on Plaintiff Cellwitch, Inc.’s (“Cellwitch”) Motion to Enforce IPR Estoppel (Dkt. No. 162), 15 portions of their briefing on Defendant Tile, Inc.’s (“Tile”) Motion for Leave to File a First 16 Amended Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 185, 197), portions of a July 13, 2023 17 Meet and Confer transcript (Dkt. No. 192), and portions of Tile’s Responsive Claim Construction 18 Brief (Dkt. No. 199). 19 For most judicial records, the party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate 20 “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records and 21 documents, including judicial records. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 22 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) 23 (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006)). A “party 24 seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 25 findings ... outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’ ” 26 Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79). 27 Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 1 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the 2 lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1097. 3 The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 4 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 5 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 7 Applying these standards where appropriate, the Court rules as follows: 8 9 Docket. No. Description Ruling 10 162-3 Ex. C to Tile’s GRANTED. Opposition to Motion 11 for IPR Estoppel 12 13 162-4 Ex. D to Tile’s GRANTED. Opposition to Motion 14 for IPR Estoppel 15 185-4 Ex. 3 to Tile’s Motion GRANTED. 16 for Leave to Amend 17 18 185-5 Ex. 5 to Tile’s Motion DENIED. for Leave to Amend 19 Cellwitch has failed to demonstrate compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the strong 20 policy favoring public access and disclosure. Specifically, this document contains no 21 confidential information – only that Mr. Orrick 22 searched for “Bluetags” and found a publicly available patent. 23 24 185-6 Ex. 7 to Tile’s Motion DENIED. for Leave to Amend 25 Cellwitch did not request for this document to be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 26 5(f)(3) 27 1 185-7 Ex. 8 to Tile’s Motion GRANTED. for Leave to Amend 2 3 185-8 Ex. 9 to Tile’s Motion DENIED. 4 for Leave to Amend Cellwitch did not request for this document to 5 be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). 6 7 185-9 Ex. 10 to Tile’s Motion GRANTED. for Leave to Amend 8 9 185-10 Ex. 11 to Tile’s Motion GRANTED. 10 for Leave to Amend 11 185-11 Ex. 12 to Tile’s Motion DENIED. 12 for Leave to Amend Cellwitch failed to demonstrate compelling 13 reasons sufficient to overcome the strong policy favoring public access and disclosure. 14 Specifically, this document contains no 15 confidential information – only that Mr. Orrick found the webpage 16 “http://www.freepatentsonline.com” “very good.” 17 18 185-12 Highlighted portions of DENIED. Ex. 21 to Tile’s Motion 19 for Leave to Amend Cellwitch failed to demonstrate compelling 20 reasons sufficient to overcome the strong policy favoring public access and disclosure. 21 Specifically, as to much of the highlighted portions of Ex. 21, Cellwitch has already filed 22 this information publicly in other documents. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 201-1. Accordingly 23 Cellwitch is directed to file a statement 24 proposing narrower redactions consistent with its other publicly filed documents within 7 25 days of this order. 26 185-13 Highlighted portions of DENIED. 27 Ex. 22 to Tile’s Motion for Leave to Amend reasons sufficient to overcome the strong 1 policy favoring public access and disclosure. 2 Specifically, as to much of the highlighted portions of Ex. 22, Cellwitch has already filed 3 this information publicly in other documents. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 201-1. Accordingly 4 Cellwitch is directed to file a statement proposing narrower redactions consistent with 5 its other publicly filed documents within 7 6 days of this order. 7 185-14 Highlighted portions of DENIED. 8 Ex. 23 to Tile’s Motion for Leave to Amend Cellwitch did not request for this document to 9 be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). 10 11 185-15 Highlighted portions of DENIED. 12 Ex. 25 to Tile’s Motion for Leave to Amend Cellwitch did not request for this document to 13 be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). 14 15 192-3 Highlighted portions of DENIED. the July 13, 2023 Meet 16 and Confer Transcript Tile is directed to file its proposed shortened except of the transcript (Dkt. No. 192-4) in lieu 17 of filing Dkt. 192-3 under seal. 18 19 197-3 Highlighted portions of GRANTED as to Cellwitch’s proposed Tile’s Reply in Support redactions (Dkt. No. 201-1). 20 of its Motion for Leave to Amend. 21 22 199-3 Highlighted Portions of DENIED. 23 Tile’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief Cellwitch did not request for this document to 24 be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). 25 26 199-4 Highlighted Portions of GRANTED. Ex. 9 to Tile’s 27 Responsive Claim The highlighted portions of Ex. 9 to Tile’s Construction Brief documents Cellwitch has requested to remain 1 sealed. 2 3 199-5 Ex. 10 to Tile’s DENIED. Responsive Claim 4 Construction Brief Cellwitch did not request for this document to be sealed in its statement pursuant to L.R. 79- 5 5(f)(3). 6 199-6 Ex. 11 to Tile’s GRANTED. 7 Responsive Claim 8 Construction Brief 9 199-7 Ex. 12 to Tile’s GRANTED. 10 Responsive Claim Construction Brief 11 12 199-8 Ex. 13 to Tile’s GRANTED. Responsive Claim 13 Construction Brief 14 15 199-9 Ex. 14 to Tile’s GRANTED. Responsive Claim 16 Construction Brief 17 199-10 Ex. 15 to Tile’s GRANTED. 18 Responsive Claim 19 Construction Brief 20 199-11 Ex. 16 to Tile’s GRANTED. 21 Responsive Claim Construction Brief 22 23 199-12 Ex. 17 to Tile’s GRANTED. Responsive Claim 24 Construction Brief 25

27 ] The Parties are directed to file these documents on the Court’s docket consistent with the 2 || above rulings within 7 days of the date of this order. With regards to Dkt. Nos 185-12 and 185- 3 13, Cellwitch is directed to file a statement proposing narrower redactions consistent with its other 4 || publicly filed documents, within 7 days of the date of this order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7) 6 || Dated: October 27, 2023 ( f nt /JEFFREY S. WHITE 8 / JUnit States DAtrict Judge 9 / 10 1]

«17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28