Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK SYSTEMS, INC., 13 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 14 FILE UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS IN v. CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS’ 15 MOTION TO DISMISS AVANCI, LLC, et al., 16 Re: Dkt. Nos. 161, 181 Defendants. 17 18 On August 30, 2019, Defendants filed a consolidated Motion to Dismiss on various 19 grounds. ECF No. 162. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its Opposition to 20 the consolidated Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”) on October 4, 2019. ECF No. 182. Before the 21 Court are two sealing motions: (1) the Nokia Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal 22 the Second Declaration of Lasse Holopainen, which was filed in support of Defendants’ 23 consolidated Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 161; and (2) Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file 24 under seal its Opposition and certain documents attached thereto, ECF No. 181. However, the 25 Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas on 26 December 11, 2019. ECF No. 204. As a result of the transfer, this Court need not decide 27 1 1 Defendants’ consolidated Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, as explained below, the Court GRANTS 2 both administrative motions to seal. 3 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 4 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 5 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 6 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, this is a “common law right,” 7 United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2017), reflecting the American judicial system’s 8 longstanding commitment to “the open courtroom,” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 9 (9th Cir. 2014). The public policy favoring public access to judicial proceedings applies equally 10 to court records because “court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or 11 explanations for a court’s decision.” Id. Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a 12 strong presumption in favor of access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. 13 of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658 14 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). That presumption can be 15 overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweighs the general history of 16 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95. 17 “Despite this strong preference for public access,” the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an 18 exception” for certain court filings. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 19 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, filings that are not “more than tangentially related to the 20 merits of a case” need only satisfy the “less exacting” “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1097, 1102. The Ninth Circuit has explained that the rationale 22 underlying the “good cause” standard is that “the public has less of a need for access to court 23 records” that “are unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 24 Oliner, 745 F.3d at 1026. 25 Here, however, all of the documents sought to be sealed were filed in connection with 26 Defendants’ consolidated Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Opposition thereto. When the Court 27 2 1 transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas, the consolidated Motion to Dismiss moved 2 to that court’s docket. Because the Court did not decide the consolidated Motion to Dismiss, the 3 Court GRANTS the (1) the Nokia Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal the Second 4 Declaration of Lasse Holopainen and (2) Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal its 5 Opposition and certain supporting documents. The documents that the moving parties 6 provisionally filed under seal at the docket entries listed above shall remain under seal. 7 Nevertheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s request to seal entire documents was likely 8 overbroad. In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable sealing standard, all parties 9 requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5, including that rule’s requirement that 10 the request “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(b). 11 Furthermore, “conclusory offerings do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently 12 specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (requiring a 13 specific compelling reason for each redaction rather than “a general category of privilege”). In 14 order to seal documents in their entirety, then, the party requesting sealing must provide 15 compelling and specific justifications for doing so. Hence, had the Court reached the merits of 16 Plaintiff’s administrative motion, the motion would likely have been denied in part for failure to 17 comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5(b). 18 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s administrative motion and the Nokia Defendants’ administrative 19 motion failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5(e). Both motions were brought in part under 20 Civil Local Rule 79–5(e), which governs sealing when a party other than the moving party (the so- 21 called “Designating Party”) has designated the information at issue confidential. As relevant here, 22 that rule requires the designating party to provide the Court with a declaration “establishing that 23 all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(e)(1); see Civ. L.R. 79–5(d)(1)(A). 24 However, some of the designating parties identified in Plaintiff’s administrative motion and in the 25 Nokia Defendants’ administrative motion failed to file the required declaration. The Court would 26 therefore have denied the instant sealing motions as to the documents purportedly designated 27 3 1 confidential by those parties. 2 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: December 11, 2019 te IC f 5 6 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 19-CV-02520-LHK ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION