Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc
This text of Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc (Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, CASE NO. C19-1745JLR et al., 11 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiffs, 12 v.
13 SUMMIT IMAGING INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court are three motions to seal filed by Plaintiffs Philips North 17 America, LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., and Philips India, Ltd.’s (collectively, 18 “Philips”) and Defendants Summit Imaging Inc. and Lawrence R. Nguyen (collectively, 19 “Summit”): (1) Philips’s motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion for 20 partial summary judgment and motions to exclude (Philips MTS (Dkt. # 134)); (2) 21 Summit’s motion to seal its motion for summary judgment (Summit 1st MTS (Dkt. 22 1 # 181); and (3) Summit’s motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion to 2 exclude (Summit 2d MTS (Dkt. # 136)). Neither party opposes the sealing of any of the 3 documents designated as confidential by the other party. (See Summit 1st MTS at 2-3
4 (taking “no position” towards Philips’s documents); Summit 2d MTS at 3 (same); Philips 5 MTS Resp. (Dkt. # 195); Summit MTS Resp. (Dkt. # 193).) The court has considered the 6 motions, the submissions concerning the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and 7 the applicable law. Being fully advised,1 the court GRANTS Philips’s motion to seal and 8 Summit’s motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion to exclude. It
9 additionally GRANTS in part Summit’s motion to seal documents filed in support of its 10 motion for summary judgment with the exception of three documents. 11 II. BACKGROUND 12 On April 5, 2021, the parties each filed dispositive motions and various motions to 13 exclude. (See generally Dkt.) Philips additionally moved to seal its motion for partial
14 summary judgment; its three motions to exclude; and various documents filed in support 15 of the four motions. (Philips MTS at 1.) Summit moved to seal its motion for summary 16 judgment; its motion to exclude; and various documents filed in support of both motions. 17 (Summit 1st MTS at 1; Summit 2d MTS at 1-2.) Both parties move to seal documents 18 that had been designated confidential pursuant to their stipulated protective order.
19 //
20 //
21 1 No party requests oral argument (see Philips MTS at 1; Summit 1st MTS at 1; Summit 2d MTS at 1; Philips MTS Resp. at 1; Summit MTS Resp. at 1), and oral argument would not be 22 helpful to the disposition of the motions, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 (Philips MTS at 2-3; Summit 1st MTS at 3-5; Summit MTS Resp. at 1, App. A; see also 2 Protective Order (Dkt. # 40).) 3 III. ANALYSIS
4 When deciding a motion to seal, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor 5 of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 6 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). This 7 presumption, however, “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently 8 compelling reasons for doing so.” Id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
9 Ct. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). The standard for 10 determining whether to seal a record depends on the filing to which the sealed record is 11 attached. See id. at 1136-37. Because the sealed documents at issue here are attached to 12 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [this] case,” the court 13 applies the compelling reasons standard to determine if sealing is appropriate. See Ctr.
14 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-102 (9th Cir. 2016). 15 Under the compelling reasons standard, the party seeking to seal a judicial record 16 bears the burden of showing that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual 17 findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 18 disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.
19 2006). If a court decides to seal a record, it must “base its decision on a compelling 20 reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Hagestad, 49 21 F.3d at 1434). The final determination of what constitutes a compelling reason is “best 22 left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 1 589, 599 (1978). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 2 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might 3 have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release
4 trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 5 Trade secrets can be “any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information 6 which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an 7 advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Wetzel v. CertainTeed Corp., 8 No. C16-1160JLR, 2019 WL 1236859, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2019). Proprietary
9 business information that “if released to the public, has the potential to harm the parties’ 10 positions in the industry” has been found to satisfy the compelling reason standard. 11 BitTitan, Inc. v. Skykick, Inc., No. C15-0754RSM, 2015 WL 12159149, at *1 (W.D. 12 Wash. Aug. 14, 2015). Similarly, technical documents that “describe the components 13 and internal operations” of proprietary technology have also been kept under seal when
14 they contain “business and proprietary interests that would harm” the entity if publicly 15 disclosed. Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. C19-0351RSM, 2020 16 WL 4366181, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. July 30, 2020). 17 Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties seeking to file 18 documents under seal must follow the procedure laid out in Local Rule 5(g). See Local
19 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), a party filing a motion to seal 20 must include “a certification that the party has met and conferred with all other parties in 21 an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the document[s] under seal.” Id. LCR 22 // 1 5(g)(3)(A). The party seeking to seal the documents must also explain the bases for 2 requiring the relief. Id. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). 3 The court finds that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Local Rule 5(g)
4 and that there are compelling reasons to seal the documents at issue. The documents that 5 the parties seek to maintain under seal contain the parties’ confidential and proprietary 6 source code or trade secrets; technical documents that describe internal operations of the 7 parties’ technology and procedures; and business documents that contain proprietary 8 financial or accounting information. (See Philips MTS at 1; Summit 1st MTS at 1;
9 Philips MTS Resp. at 1-2; Summit MTS Resp. at App. A (listing documents).) The court 10 agree with the parties that the release of such information would potentially harm the 11 parties’ position in the industry. See Wetzel, 2019 WL 1236859, at *6. Moreover, 12 neither party opposes the sealing of the other’s identified documents. (See Summit 1st 13 MTS at 2-3 (taking “no position” towards Philips’s documents); Summit 2d MTS at 3
14 (same); Philips MTS Resp.; Summit MTS Resp.) 15 However, Philips has identified three documents erroneously identified as 16 confidential. (Summit MTS Resp. at 1 n.1 (citing Shewmake Decl. (Dkt.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philips-north-america-llc-v-summit-imaging-inc-wawd-2021.