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