Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

June 29, 2015

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PEGATRON CORPORATION, Defendant.

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 32, 35

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 10, 32, and 35) which were filed in connection with Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order and (2) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12), Defendant's Opposition thereto (ECF No. 33), and Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF No. 36).

"Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist "when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, ' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, "[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. This Court, and others in this district, have applied the "compelling reasons" standard in deciding parties' requests to seal materials submitted in connection with motions for preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-630-LHK, 2012 WL 2936432 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); see also Wells Fargo and Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., No. 12-CV-3856-PJH, 2013 WL 897914 (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2013).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable, " or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" and that "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed, " as well as an "unredacted version of the document" that "indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling 10 10-2 Exhibit A to the Strandness DENIED WITHOUT Declaration, Wireless Patent PREJUDICE because the License Agreement. request is not "narrowly tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

10 10-3 Exhibit B to the Strandness DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration, InterDigital's as to the proposed redactions at Petition for Order Confirming 2:22-23 and 3:20-24 because Arbitration Award. the material is not sealable; otherwise GRANTED. 10 10-6 Exhibit E to the Strandness DENIED WITHOUT Declaration, English-translated PREJUDICE because the version of Pegatron's February request is not "narrowly 3, 2015 Civil Complaint. tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 10 10-7 Exhibit F to the Strandness DENIED WITHOUT Declaration, non-translated PREJUDICE because the version of Pegatron's February request is not "narrowly 3, 2015 Civil Complaint. tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 10 10-8 Exhibit G to the Strandness DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration, letter from M. because the document is not MacNichol to L. Chao. sealable. 10 10-9 Exhibit H to the Strandness DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration, letter from D. because the document is not Huang to M. MacNichol. sealable. 10 10-10 Exhibit I to the Strandness DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration, letter from C. Henry because the document is not to L. Chao. sealable. 10 10-11 Exhibit J to the Strandness DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration, letter from D. because the document is not Huang to C. Henry. sealable. 10 10-12 Exhibit K to the Strandness DENIED WITHOUT Declaration, InterDigital's PREJUDICE because the Statement of Claim. request is not "narrowly tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 10 10-13 Exhibit L to the Strandness GRANTED as to the proposed Declaration, Henry Declaration. redactions to paragraphs 7, 10, and 15; otherwise DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because the material is not sealable. 10 10-15 Exhibit N to the Strandness GRANTED as to the proposed Declaration, Plaintiff's redactions at 1:14-15, 1:18-20, Complaint. and 4:23-26; otherwise DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because the material is not sealable. 10 10-17 Exhibit P to the Strandness DENIED WITHOUT Declaration, final Arbitration PREJUDICE because the Award. request is not "narrowly tailored." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 10 10-18 Exhibit Q to the Strandness GRANTED as to the proposed Declaration, InterDigital's redactions at 1:19-20, 1:22-24, Memorandum ISO Ex Parte 4:2-3, 5:12-15, 5:27, and 6:1-5; Application. otherwise DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because the material is not sealable.

32 32-4 Pegatron's Opposition to DENIED WITH PREJUDICE InterDigital's Ex Parte because the material is not Application. sealable. 32 32-6 Declaration of L. Chao. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because the material is not sealable. 32 32-8 Declaration of H. Huang. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because the material is not sealable. 35 35-3 Exhibit A to Yoo Declaration, DENIED WITH PREJUDICE Declaration of J. Schultz. because the material is not sealable. 35 35-5 Exhibit C to Yoo Declaration, DENIED WITH PREJUDICE InterDigital's Reply ISO Ex because the material is not Parte Application. sealable.

If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.