Ipsilium LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IPSILIUM LLC, Case No. 17-cv-07179-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 v. FILE UNDER SEAL 10 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 77, 91 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 13 of documents in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended infringement 14 contentions. The Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 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 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 7 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 8 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 9 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 10 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 11 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 12 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 13 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 14 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 15 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 16 June 30, 2015). 17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 18 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 19 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 20 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 21 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 22 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 23 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 24 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Because the parties seek to seal portions of their briefs and documents which pertain to a 27 nondispositive motion, the Court applies the good cause standard. 1 contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 2 See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. 3 Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 4 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 5 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties filed supporting declarations representing that 6 the identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits contain confidential 7 product information, trade secrets, and detailed source code. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 85. 8 The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’ 9 administrative motions to seal. The parties executed a settlement agreement, and the pending 10 motion for leave to file amended infringement contentions was terminated as moot. See Dkt. No. 11 100. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 12 proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal 13 given that the Court will not rule on Plaintiff’s motion. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 14 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest 15 in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not 16 have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the 17 documents divulge proprietary and confidential information unrelated to the public’s 18 understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to 19 file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071- 20 HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal 21 because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re 22 iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 23 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and 24 irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit). 25 // 26 // 27 // Il. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to 2 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are 3 granted will remain under seal. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 3/16/2020 . 8 S. GILLIAM, JR. 1 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28