Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 BOT M8 LLC, 10 Plaintiff, No. C 19-07027 WHA 11 v. 12 SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS al., TO SEAL 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 In this patent infringement suit, both parties move to seal documents submitted in a 17 discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 97, 103). Generally, “a court may seal records only when it finds a 18 compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis 19 or conjecture.” A classic example of a compelling reason is “business information that might 20 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” But, our court of appeals has “carved out an 21 exception, for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case. 22 Under this exception, a party need only satisfy the “good cause” standard . . . to protect a party 23 or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” 24 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016)(quotations and 25 citations omitted). 26 This is a discovery motion and plaintiff Bot M8 has shown good cause to seal at this 27 stage. Their redactions are tailored to the information describing a patent assignment 1 and substantive references to this information in the parties’ briefs. But for the discovery 2 dispute, this information would not usually be made public. Bot M8’s assertion of competitive 3 harm are reasonable under the relaxed standard here. 4 The parties are warned, however, that the assertions of competitive harm may be 5 insufficient to satisfy the “compelling reason” standard. The underlying dispute here is 6 whether Bot M8 possesses sufficient rights in the asserted patents to have standing to sue. 7 Should the information sealed here be raised in a future motion to dismiss for lack of 8 jurisdiction, the parties will not be permitted to rely on this order as cause to seal. The public 9 is entitled to know who owns the patents-in-suit which, after all, grant the owner the right to 10 publicly exclude others. 11 Only the documents (or portions thereof) listed below may remain sealed (for now): 12 Docket Description Portion to Remain Sealed © = 13 98 Sony’s Brief Page 1: lines 24, 27; 14 Page 2: lines 22—23, 26-28; S Page 3: lines 1-3, 5-6, 10-11. 15 2 98-2 Portion of Patent — Entirety. 16 Purchase Agreement 18 98-3 Privilege Log. Entirety. 19 98-5 Responses to Page 2: lines 16-17. Interrogatory. 0 gatory 1 104 Bot M8’s Brief. Page 1: lines 22—25; Page 2: lines 1-5. 22 To the above extent, the motions are GRANTED. Otherwise they are DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ll Dated: February 13, 2020. 25 27 ILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28