Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9 10 NETFLIX INC, Defendant. 11 12 A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court 13 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re 14 Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access 15 maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity 16 and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open 17 court. 18 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 19 exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the 20 public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is 21 required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported 22 by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive 23 motions such as a summary judgment motion. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 24 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 25 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial 26 harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties 27 may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not 1 This order addresses a slew of motions to seal portions of discovery letters, mostly related 2 to material that plaintiffs have claimed as confidential. Dkt. Nos. 225, 241, 280, 288, 292, 321. 3 The Court’s sealing determinations are stated in the attached chart. See Ex. A. 4 In the main, plaintiffs offer perfunctory claims that the letters and underlying documents 5 || contain confidential information which should be shielded from public view. For example, they 6 || say that the documents contain or reference “information . . . relating to confidential patent 7 licenses and licensing negotiations,” Dkt. No. 225-1 45; “proprietary information about 8 [Broadcom’s] finances, including profits, losses, and projections,” Dkt. No. 246-1 4 6; and 9 || “confidential financial information relating to Plaintiffs’ business relationships,” Dkt. No. 283-1 10 || □□□ Plaintiffs also made conclusory statements about the competitive harm that they will suffer if 11 this information is disclosed. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 246-1 9 6; Dkt. No. 283-1 46. “Such conclusory 12 and unsupported formulations, which for example do not explain how a competitor would use the 5 13 information to obtain an unfair advantage, are insufficient for sealing.” DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 14 |] 75734, at *1. 15 The “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for the documents, or portions thereof, 16 that the Court declines to seal. In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting 3 17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant 18 documents on ECF within 7 days of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(g). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: February 21, 2023 21 22 73 JAMES/#PONATO United §tates District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal 1 2 Document Information sought to Proffered Reason for Ruling 3 be sealed Sealing 4 Joint Letter Highlighted portions of Contains plaintiffs’ Denied. 5 Brief pages 7-12 confidential financial Regarding and licensing 6 Discovery information. (See Dkt. Issues, Dkt. No. 225 at 2) 7 No. 225-3 8 Exhibit A to Highlighted portions of Contains confidential Granted. Netflix’s Joint Letter pages 10-12, 16-18, 20- information about proposal is narrowly 9 Brief, Dkt. No. 22, 23-32, 44-47, and Netflix’s source code. tailored to preventing 10 225-4 49-57 (See Dkt. No. 225 at 2- disclosure of excerpts of 3) its source code. 11 Discovery Highlighted portions of Contains references to Denied. Broadcom did 12 Letter Brief re page 2 the contents of not ask to seal this 13 Broadcom’s documents designated material in its response. Claim for Lost highly confidential by (See Dkt. No. 246 at 2-3) 14 Profits, Dkt. Broadcom during No. 241-3 discovery. (See Dkt. 15 No. 241-1 ¶ 4) 16 Exhibit A to Entire document Contains proprietary Denied. Plaintiffs’ Discovery information about request was more 17 Letter Brief re plaintiffs’ finances, narrowly tailored to seal 18 Broadcom’s including profits, highlighted portions of Claim for Lost losses, and projections, pages 6-13, but they have 19 Profits, Dkt. that is not publicly not adequately explained No. 241-4 disclosed. (See Dkt. how disclosure of this 20 No. 246 at 4) material would cause competitive harm. 21 22 Discovery Highlighted portions of Contains confidential Denied. Letter Brief re pages 1-3 information about 23 Broadcom’s plaintiffs’ patent Responses to licenses and financial 24 Discovery matters, including Requests on business agreements 25 Patent Misuse, with other companies. 26 Dkt. No. 280-3 (See Dkt. No. 283 at 4; Dkt. No. 283-1 ¶ 5) 27 1 Document Information sought to Proffered Reason for Ruling be sealed Sealing 2 Exhibit A to Entire document Contains confidential, Denied. Plaintiffs’ 3 Discovery proprietary request was more Letter Brief re information about narrowly tailored to a 4 Patent Misuse, plaintiffs’ intellectual highlighted portion of 5 Dkt. No. 280-4 property licenses and page 8, but they have not business relationships. adequately explained 6 (See Dkt. No. 283-1 how disclosure of this ¶ 6) material would cause 7 competitive harm. 8 Exhibit B to Entire document Contains excerpts of a Denied. Plaintiffs did Discovery document that not ask to seal this 9 Letter Brief re plaintiffs have material in their response. 10 Patent Misuse, designated highly (See Dkt. No. 283 at 2) Dkt. No. 280-5 confidential during 11 discovery. (See Dkt. No. 280-1 ¶ 4) 12 Exhibit C to Entire document Contains excerpts of a Denied. Plaintiffs did 13 Discovery document that not ask to seal this Letter Brief re plaintiffs have material in their response. 14 Patent Misuse, designated highly (See Dkt. No. 283 at 2) 15 Dkt. No. 280-6 confidential during discovery. (See Dkt. 16 No. 280-1 ¶ 5) 17 Discovery Highlighted portions of Includes excerpts of Denied. No further Letter Brief re page 2 deposition testimony showing was made by 18 Netflix’s that Netflix has Netflix to demonstrate 19 Testimony on designated as highly why the highlighted Encoding confidential during portions of the discovery 20 Topics, Dkt. discovery. (See Dkt. letter should be sealed. No. 288-2 No. 288-1 ¶ 4) 21 Responsive Highlighted portions of Reveals licensing Granted in part. The 22 Letter Brief re pages 1-3 information as well as request to seal is granted Patent Misuse, the terms of financial only to the extent that the 23 Dkt. No. 292-2 agreements between terms of the agreement 24 plaintiffs and other are disclosed in companies. (See Dkt. paragraphs 5 and 6 (the 25 No. 292-1 ¶ 5) paragraphs beginning with “Moreover” and 26 “Again”). 27 1 Document Information sought to Proffered Reason for Ruling be sealed Sealing 2 Discovery Highlighted portions of Contains confidential Denied. 3 Letter Brief re pages 1-3 information about Broadcom’s plaintiffs’ strategic 4 Wireless Chips planning and patent 5 Business, Dkt. licenses, as well as No. 321-3 confidential financial 6 information relating to plaintiffs’ business 7 relationships. (See Dkt. No. 328 at 4; Dkt. 8 No. 328-1 ¶¶ 4-5) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27