VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL

10 INTEL CORPORATION, [Re: ECF Nos. 559, 563] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court are two motions to seal documents submitted with Intel Corporation’s 14 (“Intel”) Daubert motions. See Intel’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of 15 Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's 16 Technical Experts and Exhibits 1-5 Thereto (ECF No. 559); Intel’s Administrative Motion to File 17 Under Seal Portions of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude 18 Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Thereto (ECF No. 19 563). For the reasons discussed below, the motions are GRANTED. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 22 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 24 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 25 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 26 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 27 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 1 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 2 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 3 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 4 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 5 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 6 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 7 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 8 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 9 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 10 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 11 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 12 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 13 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 14 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 The documents at issue in Intel’s motions to seal are associated with the parties’ Daubert 17 motions and seek to strike or exclude certain expert opinions. These opinions concern 18 infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, as well as available damages for the 19 alleged infringement. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” 20 and therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under 21 seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., 22 No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 23 Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal because 24 “maintaining the confidentiality of the process recipes and technical information regarding the 25 design and operation of the accused features is critical to Intel’s business.” ECF No. 559; ECF 26 No. 563. Intel further argues that “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel 27 at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its business dealings as its 1 to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” ECF No. 559; ECF No. 563. 2 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 3 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 5 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 6 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 7 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 8 standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 9 Accordingly, Intel’s motions (ECF Nos. 559 and 563) are GRANTED. 10 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 559 Intel’s Opposition to Green boxed portions Granted. 11 Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC’s 12 Motion to Strike 13 Certain Opinions of Intel’s Experts and 14 Exhibits 1-5 thereto

15 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 16 563 Intel’s Opposition to Green boxed portions Granted. Plaintiff VLSI 17 Technology LLC’s Motion to Exclude 18 Damages Opinions of 19 Intel’s Experts and Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20 10, 11, and 12 thereto 21 The Court notes that Intel failed to comply with Section V of this Court’s Standing Order 22 Re Civil Cases. Intel does not distinguish which documents contain each type of purportedly 23 sealable information. Instead, Intel appears to argue that every document that it seeks to seal has 24 “process recipes and technical information regarding the design and operation of the accused 25 features.” ECF No. 559 at 4; ECF No. 563 at 4. This blanket assertion is not sufficiently 26 particularized to provide compelling reasons to seal. See In re Pac. Fertility Ctr. Litig., No. 18- 27 CV-01586-JSC, 2021 WL 1081129, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (denying request to seal 1 to file under seal nor has it argued that particular documents contain trade secret information.”). 2 ||} Nor does Intel comply with this Court’s standing order, which requires: 3 Each [sealing] motion must include a chart... which includes the following four columns: (1) ECF number or exhibit number of the 4 document sought to be sealed; (2) description or name of the document sought to be sealed; (3) portion(s) of the document to seal; 5 and (4) reason(s) why the document should be sealed, including citation to the applicable declaration. Each separate document for 6 which sealing is sought shall have its own row in the table. 7 Standing Order Re Civil Cases § V. 8 The Court will overlook the failure for this motion. However, future failures to comply 9 || with the standing order may result in denial of a motion to seal with prejudice. 10 Il. ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: a 12 1. Intel’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 559 is GRANTED.

13 2. Intel’s Motion to Seal at ECF No. 563 is GRANTED.

v 14 || The parties are instructed to file redacted copies of these documents as soon as is feasible in

15 || accordance with ECF No. 607. Q 16 || Dated: September 5, 2023

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 2 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28