1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 This Document Relates To: Re: Dkt. Nos. 500, 538, 558, 568 10 ALL ACTIONS 11
12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Three 13 of these motions are in connection to the parties’ briefing on Philips’ motion for leave to amend 14 infringement contentions, Dkt. Nos. 538, 558, 568, and one is in connection with ASUS’ motion 15 to strike, Dkt. No. 500.1 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to 16 file under seal, as described below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 1 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 2 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 3 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 4 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 5 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 6 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 7 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 8 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 9 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 10 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 11 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 12 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 13 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 14 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 15 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 16 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions, the Court 19 will apply the lower good cause standard. 20 The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed 21 below because they contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the 22 operations of Defendants. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 23 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto 24 Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 25 Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties have identified 26 portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential and 27 proprietary business information, and the Court finds good cause to grant the motions to file the 1 However, for a number of the documents listed below, the parties have failed to narrowly 2 tailor the redactions to confidential and proprietary business information. For example, many of 3 the documents the parties seek to seal in their entirety are Philips’ infringement contentions, 4 discovery responses, and excerpts of deposition transcripts. But boilerplate objections in 5 discovery responses do not create confidential and proprietary business information. The parties 6 also do not explain how all the materials in Philips’ infringement contentions, such as the cover 7 sheets and claim charts, contain confidential business information. Further, some of the 8 information is unredacted elsewhere and thus publicly available. Sealing these documents in their 9 entirety is substantially overbroad, and the parties do not thoroughly articulate how disclosure of 10 the material in each proposed redaction would lead to specific harm or prejudice. 11 Many of the parties’ sealing requests indicate that they are contingent on a different party 12 filing a declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. See Civ. L. R. 79- 13 5(d)(1)(A). For some of these sealing requests, the designating party failed to file the required 14 supporting declaration or the designating party did not believe the material was confidential. See 15 Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court denies the sealing of documents relating to material designated 16 “Confidential” for which the designating party failed to provide support. 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 18 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed ASUS’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 500 19 Entire documents Exhibits 8 and 9 to Entire exhibits GRANTED sealed/(500-2) the Declaration of 20 Derek Neilson ISO Defendants’ Motion 21 to Strike Philips’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 538 22 542/(538-4) Excerpts of Philips’ Pages and lines: GRANTED Motion for Leave to 16:27–28; 18:19– 23 Amend 23; 18:27; 19:1; 19:3–4; 23:1–3; 24 23:13–17; 23:24– 26; 25 546/(538-6) Declaration of Sean ¶ 26 (7:5–7); ¶ 43 GRANTED M. McCarthy ISO (10:17–19); ¶ 63 26 Philips’ Motion for (14:11–19); ¶ 66 Leave to Amend (14:27–15:4); ¶ 68 27 (15:10–16); ¶ 70 Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 1 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed ¶ 74 (16:18–17:9); 2 ¶ 76 (17:14–21) 554-1, 554-2, 554-3, Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 9–12, Entire exhibits or GRANTED as to Exhibits 3 554-4, 554-5, 554-6, 15–22, 24, 25, 27–30, redacted portions 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 554-7, 554-8, 554-9, 33–36, 37, 38–41, 45– identified in public 25, 29, 30, 41, 45, 49, 50, 4 554-10, 554-11, 50, 54–55, and 57 to filing 57 554-12, 554- the Declaration of 5 13/(538-7, 538-8, Sean M. McCarthy DENIED as to Exhibits 3, 538-9, 538-10, 538- ISO Philips’ Motion 5, 6, 10, 24, 34, 35, 36, 37, 6 11, 538-12, 538-13, for Leave to Amend 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48: not 538-14, 538-15, narrowly tailored 7 538-16, 538-17, 538-18, 538-19) DENIED as to Exhibits 9, 8 11, 16, 20, 27, 28, 33, 54, 55: deemed not 9 confidential by designating party 10 Entire documents Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 9–19, Entire exhibits GRANTED as to Exhibits 11 sealed/(538-20, 538- 26–28, and 36 to the 12, 13, 14, 15, 36 21, 538-22, 538-23, Declaration of Daniel 12 538-24) A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 This Document Relates To: Re: Dkt. Nos. 500, 538, 558, 568 10 ALL ACTIONS 11
12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Three 13 of these motions are in connection to the parties’ briefing on Philips’ motion for leave to amend 14 infringement contentions, Dkt. Nos. 538, 558, 568, and one is in connection with ASUS’ motion 15 to strike, Dkt. No. 500.1 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to 16 file under seal, as described below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 1 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 2 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 3 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 4 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 5 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 6 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 7 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 8 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 9 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 10 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 11 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 12 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 13 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 14 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 15 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 16 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions, the Court 19 will apply the lower good cause standard. 20 The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed 21 below because they contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the 22 operations of Defendants. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 23 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto 24 Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 25 Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties have identified 26 portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential and 27 proprietary business information, and the Court finds good cause to grant the motions to file the 1 However, for a number of the documents listed below, the parties have failed to narrowly 2 tailor the redactions to confidential and proprietary business information. For example, many of 3 the documents the parties seek to seal in their entirety are Philips’ infringement contentions, 4 discovery responses, and excerpts of deposition transcripts. But boilerplate objections in 5 discovery responses do not create confidential and proprietary business information. The parties 6 also do not explain how all the materials in Philips’ infringement contentions, such as the cover 7 sheets and claim charts, contain confidential business information. Further, some of the 8 information is unredacted elsewhere and thus publicly available. Sealing these documents in their 9 entirety is substantially overbroad, and the parties do not thoroughly articulate how disclosure of 10 the material in each proposed redaction would lead to specific harm or prejudice. 11 Many of the parties’ sealing requests indicate that they are contingent on a different party 12 filing a declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. See Civ. L. R. 79- 13 5(d)(1)(A). For some of these sealing requests, the designating party failed to file the required 14 supporting declaration or the designating party did not believe the material was confidential. See 15 Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court denies the sealing of documents relating to material designated 16 “Confidential” for which the designating party failed to provide support. 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 18 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed ASUS’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 500 19 Entire documents Exhibits 8 and 9 to Entire exhibits GRANTED sealed/(500-2) the Declaration of 20 Derek Neilson ISO Defendants’ Motion 21 to Strike Philips’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 538 22 542/(538-4) Excerpts of Philips’ Pages and lines: GRANTED Motion for Leave to 16:27–28; 18:19– 23 Amend 23; 18:27; 19:1; 19:3–4; 23:1–3; 24 23:13–17; 23:24– 26; 25 546/(538-6) Declaration of Sean ¶ 26 (7:5–7); ¶ 43 GRANTED M. McCarthy ISO (10:17–19); ¶ 63 26 Philips’ Motion for (14:11–19); ¶ 66 Leave to Amend (14:27–15:4); ¶ 68 27 (15:10–16); ¶ 70 Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 1 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed ¶ 74 (16:18–17:9); 2 ¶ 76 (17:14–21) 554-1, 554-2, 554-3, Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 9–12, Entire exhibits or GRANTED as to Exhibits 3 554-4, 554-5, 554-6, 15–22, 24, 25, 27–30, redacted portions 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 554-7, 554-8, 554-9, 33–36, 37, 38–41, 45– identified in public 25, 29, 30, 41, 45, 49, 50, 4 554-10, 554-11, 50, 54–55, and 57 to filing 57 554-12, 554- the Declaration of 5 13/(538-7, 538-8, Sean M. McCarthy DENIED as to Exhibits 3, 538-9, 538-10, 538- ISO Philips’ Motion 5, 6, 10, 24, 34, 35, 36, 37, 6 11, 538-12, 538-13, for Leave to Amend 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48: not 538-14, 538-15, narrowly tailored 7 538-16, 538-17, 538-18, 538-19) DENIED as to Exhibits 9, 8 11, 16, 20, 27, 28, 33, 54, 55: deemed not 9 confidential by designating party 10 Entire documents Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 9–19, Entire exhibits GRANTED as to Exhibits 11 sealed/(538-20, 538- 26–28, and 36 to the 12, 13, 14, 15, 36 21, 538-22, 538-23, Declaration of Daniel 12 538-24) A. Apgar ISO Philips’ DENIED as to Exhibits 3, Motion for Leave to 5, 6, 16, 18, 19, 28: not 13 Amend narrowly tailored
14 DENIED as to Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 17, 26, 27: no 15 supporting Rule 79-5(e)(1) declaration 16 532/(538-26) Excerpts of the ¶ 56 (14:14–27) DENIED: no Declaration of Jaime particularized showing 17 F. Cardenas-Navia how disclosure would lead ISO Philips’ Motion to specific harm or 18 for Leave to Amend prejudice Entire documents Exhibits 6–17, 19–24, Entire exhibits GRANTED as to Exhibits 19 sealed/(538-27, 538- 26, and 30 to the 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 28, 538-29, 30) Declaration of Jaime 20 F. Cardenas-Navia DENIED as to Exhibits 7, ISO Philips’ Motion 8, 11, 13, 22, 23, 24, 30: 21 for Leave to Amend not narrowly tailored
22 DENIED as to Exhibits 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 25, 26: no 23 supporting Rule 79-5(e)(1) declaration 24 549-1, 549-2, 549-3, Exhibits 16, 19–21, Entire exhibits or GRANTED as to Exhibits 549-4, 549-5, 549-6, 23–25, 27, 28, 30, and redacted portions 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 30 25 549-7, 549-8/(538- 31 to the Declaration identified in public 31, 538-32, 538-33, of Robert S. Pickens filing DENIED as to Exhibits 21, 26 538-34, 538-35, ISO Philips’ Motion 25, 27, 28, 31: designating 538-36) for Leave to Amend party has filed public 27 versions (549-2, 549-5, Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 1 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed Entire document Declaration of Entire document DENIED: not narrowly 2 sealed/(538-37) Jonathan M. Sharret tailored ISO Philips’ Motion 3 for Leave to Amend 554-14, 554-15, Exhibits 1–4, 103, Entire exhibits or GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 554-16, 554-17, 107, 111, 112, 113– redacted portions 103, 107, 113, 115, 116, 548-1, 548-2, 548-3 119, 204, 206, 208, identified in public 117, 204, 208, 209, 303, 5 /(538-38, 538-39, 209, 303, 304–310, filing 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 538-40, 538-41, 313–314 to the 309, 310, 313, 314 6 538-42, 538-43, Declaration of 538-44, 538-45, Jonathan M. Sharret DENIED as to Exhibits 1, 7 538-46, 538-47, ISO Philips’ Motion 2, 3, 4, 112, 119: not 538-48, 538-49, for Leave to Amend narrowly tailored 8 538-50, 538-51, 538-52) DENIED as to Exhibits 9 111, 114, and 118: deemed not confidential by 10 designating party
11 DENIED as to Exhibit 206: no supporting Rule 12 79-5(e)(1) declaration Defendants’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 558 13 559/(558-2) Excerpts of Pages and lines: GRANTED Defendants’ 20:5–6; 21:2–6; 14 Opposition to 22:20–21 Plaintiffs’ Motion for 15 Leave to Amend 559-14/(558-9) Exhibit 1 to the Redacted portions GRANTED 16 Declaration of Amy identified in public M. Bailey ISO filing 17 Defendants’ Opposition 18 564-1/(558-6, 558- Exhibits B–D to the Entire exhibits or GRANTED as to Exhibit 7, 558-8) Declaration of Patrick redacted portions B 19 J. McKeever ISO identified in public Defendants’ filing DENIED as to Exhibits C, 20 Opposition D: not narrowly tailored Entire documents Exhibits 2–3 to the Entire exhibits GRANTED 21 sealed/(558-4, 558- Declaration of Derek 5) Neilson ISO 22 Defendants’ Opposition 23 Philips’ Admin Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 568 24 569-12/(568-3) Exhibit 11 to the Entire exhibit DENIED: no supporting Declaration of Sean Rule 79-5(e)(1) declaration 25 M. McCarthy ISO Philips’ Reply 26
27 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 500, 538, 558, 568. 3 Because of the substantial volume of documents, the Court will allow fourteen days (14) from the 4 || date of this order for the parties to file the unredacted versions of the materials or file renewed 5 motions to seal according to the requirements discussed above. If the parties wish to file renewed 6 || motions to seal, the parties are directed to meet and confer before the submissions, coordinate 7 redactions, and submit joint motions for any given filing the parties wish to keep partially 8 || redacted, which include all corresponding Civil Local Rule 79-5 declarations as attachments. 9 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 10 |] motions are granted will remain under seal. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: 9/23/2019
HAY OOD S. GILLIAM, JR. nited States District Judge 16
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28