1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ICEBERG ASSOCIATES, LLP, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01084-RBM-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 DYNAMIC DATA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al., 15 Defendant. [Docs. 10, 12] 16 17 18 Presently before the Court are two motions to seal filed by Defendant Dynamic Data 19 Technologies, LLC (“Dynamic Data”). (Docs. 10, 12.) For the reasons discussed below, 20 Dynamic Data’s motions are GRANTED. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 27 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 28 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 1 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 2 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 3 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 4 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 6 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 7 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 8 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 9 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 10 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does 11 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 12 The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can 13 show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 14 the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 15 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 16 U.S. at 598). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of 17 the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular 18 case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 19 Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being 20 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 21 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 22 documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, 23 development, or commercial information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2885- 24 LHK, 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 25 269(c)(1)(G)). 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Dynamic Data seeks to seal: (1) portions of the Complaint filed in this action by 28 Iceberg Associates LLP (“Plaintiff”); and (2) portions of Dynamic Data’s memorandum of 1 points and authorities in support of its motion to dismiss. (See Doc. 10 at 1; Doc. 12 at 2.) 2 Because each of these filings are “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,” 3 the compelling reasons standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. The Court 4 will consider each request in turn. 5 In its first motion to seal, Dynamic Data seeks an order redacting certain information 6 from Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibit 2 to the Complaint. Dynamic Data states that 7 neither Plaintiff nor Defendant MaxLinear, Inc. (“MaxLinear”) opposes Dynamic Data’s 8 request. (Doc. 10 at 1.) Dynamic Data argues compelling reasons exist to file portions of 9 the Complaint and Exhibit 2 thereto under seal because they contain “Dynamic Data’s 10 pricing information relating to both patent acquisition pricing and patent licensing pricing” 11 which are key portions of Dynamic Data’s business. (Id. at 1–2.) Exhibit 2 to the 12 Complaint is an April 18, 2018 Patent Purchase Agreement between Entropic 13 Communications, LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of MaxLinear), MaxLinear, and 14 Dynamic Data. (Doc. 10-2 ¶ 2.) Dynamic Data states that its “business involves acquiring 15 patent rights and licensing those patent rights to technology companies” and that the pricing 16 information subject to the motion to seal, “if known to potential sellers of patents or 17 potential licensees of patents owned by Dynamic Data, can be used to Dynamic Data’s 18 detriment.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Finally, Dynamic Data argues that its future business dealings would 19 be prejudiced if this information was disclosed to its competitors. (Id. ¶ 4.) In its second 20 motion to seal, Dynamic Data seeks an order redacting certain information from its 21 memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion to dismiss. Dynamic Data 22 states that the information it seeks to redact from its briefing is the same information it 23 seeks to redact from Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 12 at 2.) Defendant again argues that 24 information contained in the April 18, 2018 Patent Purchase Agreement, if filed publicly, 25 would negatively impact Dynamic Data’s business. (Doc. 12-2 ¶¶ 2–4.) 26 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information subject to Dynamic 27 Data’s motions. Having reviewed Dynamic Data’s proposed redactions, along with the 28 underlying content of the documents at issue, the Court finds the proposed redactions and 1 |}sealing request narrowly tailored to protect only that information directly related to 2 || Dynamic Data’s commercially sensitive information. Additionally, the Court finds that the 3 information, 1f disclosed, could potentially hurt Dynamic Data’s competitive standing. See 4 || Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int’l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 5 || 1035730, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (granting motion to seal documents where court 6 || found such information “could be improperly used” by competitors). 7 il. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dynamic Data’s motions to seal. (Docs. 10, 12.) 9 || On or before October 14, 2022: (1) the parties shall coordinate and file a redacted version 10 the Complaint and Exhibit 2 thereto on the public docket; and (2) Defendant shall file a 11 ||redacted version of its memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion to 12 dismiss on the public docket. All redactions must comport with the terms of this Order. 13 || The Clerk of Court is directed to accept and file under seal the lodged documents (Docs. 14 13). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||DATE: October 7, 2022 17 18 _ Fe Eirias, Ming D_ 19 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28