Sandisk Technologies, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2025
• Docket: 4:22-cv-04376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SANDISK3D IP HOLDINGS LTD., et al., Case No. 22-cv-04376-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 145 10 VIASAT, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal, Dkt. No. 14 145, filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their infringement contentions, 15 Dkt. No. 146. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 7 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 8 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 9 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 10 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 11 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 12 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 13 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 14 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 15 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 16 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 17 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 18 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 19 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 20 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 21 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 22 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 23 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiffs’ motion to seal was filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend 26 their infringement contentions. Dkt. No. 146. Plaintiffs’ motion to seal seeks to seal Plaintiffs’ 27 infringement contention claim charts, which include “excerpts and quotes of [Defendant’s] 1 of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal and attached as exhibits redacted versions of Plaintiffs’ claim charts. 2 Dkt. Nos. 147-2–147-5. Because Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their infringement 3 contentions is a nondispositive motion and is “only tangentially related” to the underlying cause of 4 action, the Court applies the lower “good cause” standard. 5 Defendant has shown good cause exists to seal Plaintiffs’ infringement contention claim 6 charts. Defendant states that its source code and product operation information “could be used by 7 [its] competitors to [its] detriment.” Dkt. No. 147 at 3. More specifically, Defendant states that 8 the “operation [], and inner workings of [Defendant’s] products and proprietary technology . . . are 9 not apparent from normal consumer operation[,]” and “[i]f this confidential source code and 10 product operation information were disclosed, significant competitive harm could result for 11 [Defendant] because [Defendant’s] competitors could use this proprietary source code and product 12 operation information . . . to replicate this product operation and source code in their own 13 products.” Dkt. No. 147-1 ¶ 4. 14 Courts routinely grant motions to seal confidential source code and product operation 15 information. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 16 6115623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (“Exhibit 23 . . . consists entirely of Samsung’s source 17 code . . . . Thus, Exhibit 23 meets the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. 18 Apple, Inc., No. 14-CV-05330-HSG, 2020 WL 789549, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (granting 19 motion to seal “information regarding the identity and operations of . . . components in Apple’s 20 products or containing confidential information regarding the operations of source code for 21 Apple’s products”); Campbell v. Facebook Inc., No. 13-CV-05996-PJH, 2016 WL 7888026, at *2 22 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) (granting motion to seal “information regarding the processes and 23 functionality of Facebook’s security and antiabuse products and systems, [] source code, and [] the 24 names of internal tables in Facebook’s database”). 25 Because Plaintiffs’ infringement contention claim charts divulge Defendant’s confidential 26 source code and product operation information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the 27 judicial proceedings in this case, the Court finds the parties have established good cause to file the I. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 145. 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 3 motion is granted will remain under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 3/17/2025

7 avwobd S. GILLIAM, JR. □ g United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17 6 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28