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 GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER 10 INTEL CORPORATION, PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 653] 12 13 Before the Court is VLSI Technology’s (“VLSI”) Administrative Motion to Consider 14 Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed regarding its Motion for Relief from 15 Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 652). For the reasons described 16 below, the motion is GRANTED. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On September 13, 2023, VLSI filed a Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order 19 of Magistrate Judge (“Motion for Relief”). ECF No. 652. On the same day, VLSI filed an 20 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed 21 (“Administrative Motion”) in connection with the Motion for Relief. ECF No. 653. On 22 September 20, 2023, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) filed a declaration and exhibits in support of 23 VLSI’s Administrative Motion. ECF Nos. 665, 666. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 27 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 1 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 3 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 4 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 5 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 6 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 The document at issue, VLSI’s Motion for Relief, is related to a motion to strike VLSI’s 9 expert opinions related to available damages for the alleged infringement. These issues are “more 10 than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore Intel must provide “compelling 11 reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see 12 also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. 13 Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). 14 Intel seeks to seal selected excerpts from VLSI’s Motion for Relief. Intel explains that 15 “[d]isclosure of information regarding Intel’s financial decisions and Intel’s marketing research 16 and strategies (e.g., Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what features Intel’s customers value, 17 the potential price premiums associated with those features and how Intel expects certain features 18 to affect the sales of certain products) would provide competitors and potential counterparties with 19 unfair insight into Intel’s business strategies and cost/benefit analyses.” ECF No. 665 ¶ 6. Intel 20 further argues, “[b]ecause of the highly confidential nature of the information Intel seeks to seal 21 and the potential harm that Intel could suffer in competition with other manufacturers, there is no 22 less restrictive alternative to sealing the requested information.” Id. ¶ 9. 23 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 24 document. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, 25 at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” 26 in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court 27 also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 1 ECF or Document Portion(s) Ruling > Exhibit No. to Seal ECF No. 652 | VLSI’s Motion |Green Granted, as green highlighted portions reveal 3 for Relief highlighted _| Intel’s confidential analysis regarding what portions features Intel’s customers value, the potential 4 price premiums associated with those features, and how Intel expects certain features to affect 5 the sales of certain products. Selwyn Decl. □ 8 6 IV. ORDER 4 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 9 Dated: September 26, 2023

11 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

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