United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
SANCTIONS RE: DKT. NOS. 113, 116, 117, 131, 144
JAMES
DONATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this
patent action, plaintiff Johnstech International Corp.
(“Johnstech”) and defendant JF Microtechnology
SDN BHD (“JFM”) have filed several administrative
motions to seal portions of their summary judgment and
sanctions briefing under Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court
grants and denies the requests as detailed in this order.
I.
STANDARDS
In our
circuit, a party seeking to seal documents filed in
connection with a dispositive motion must establish
“compelling reasons” to overcome a historically
“strong presumption of access to judicial
records.” Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotes omitted). This standard presents a
“high threshold, ” and “a ‘good
cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy”
it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). To meet the
“compelling reasons” standard, a party seeking to
seal material must show specific, individualized reasons for
the sealing, “‘without relying on hypothesis or
conjecture, ’” such as “‘whether
disclosure of the material could result in improper use of
the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or
infringement upon trade secrets.’” See Pintos
v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679, 679
n.6 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,
49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)). The Ninth Circuit has
found the compelling reasons standard met by “pricing
terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment
terms” in a license agreement, as these are trade
secrets used in the party’s business, conferring an
opportunity to obtain advantage over competitors who do not
know or use them. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F.
App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Apple Inc.
v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (applying this standard and sealing “detailed
product-specific financial information” and
“profit, cost, and margin data” that “could
give the suppliers an advantage in contract negotiations,
which they could use to extract price increases for
components”). However, “[s]imply mentioning a
general category of privilege, without any further
elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does
not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1184. In particular, “[a]n unsupported assertion of
‘unfair advantage’ to competitors without
explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e]
information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is
insufficient.” Ochoa v. McDonald’s
Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Jun. 5, 2015) (quoting Hodges v. Apple, Inc.,
No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
18, 2013)).
Under
Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing request must also “be
narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,
” and “establish[ ] that the document, or
portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the
law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). When ordering sealing, the
district court must “articulate the rationale
underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v.
Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
II.
DETERMINATIONS
Many of
the requests here fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5
because they were not filed with an unredacted version
showing “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the
redacted version.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). While the
sealing requests could have been denied on that ground, the
Court undertook the burden of comparing the unredacted and
redacted copies mainly to move this case to resolution
without further delay. But the parties are advised that any
future motions to seal will be summarily denied if Local Rule
79-5, or the Court’s prior orders on sealing requests,
are not followed to the letter.
This
table summarizes the administrative motions to seal that the
Court rules on in this order:
-
Motion (Dkt. No.)
|
Documents Sought to be Sealed (by Dkt. No.)
|
Party Declaration in Support (by Dkt. No.)
|
113
|
113-14 to 113-22 - Exhibits B, F, G, I, J to
Merrill Declaration
113-12 - Portions of Johnstech’s Summary
Judgment Motion referencing these Exhibits
|
113-1, 113-13 114
|
116
|
116-13 to 116-22 - Exhibits 2, 4-8, 8A, 9, 14, 15
to Merrill Declaration
116-12 - Portions of Johnstech’s Opposition
to JFM’s Summary Judgment Motion referencing
these Exhibits
|
116-1130
|
117
|
117-2, -6, -8, -10 - Exhibits B, G, I, J to Hayes
Declaration
|
117-1
|
131
|
131-5 - Exhibit E to Second Merrill Declaration
131-4 - Reply Memorandum referring to Exhibit E
|
131-1
|
144
|
144-4 and -6 - Exhibits B and C to Hansen
Declaration in Support of JFM’s Response re
Discovery Sanctions
|
144-1
|
A.
Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Support of
Johnstech’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 113)
Johnstech
states that it filed these documents under seal because they
were designated “Confidential” or “Highly
Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” by JFM under
the protective order in this matter. Dkt. No. 113. JFM filed
a declaration with facts supporting the sealing request. Dkt.
No. 114.
-
Document
|
JFM’s Basis for Sealing (Dkt. No. 114)
|
Ruling
|
113-14 (Exhibit B)
|
Identifies shared customers and contains
confidential information on specific amounts of
JFM’s business attributable to those
customers over specific periods of time.
|
Granted. The exhibit details product-specific
customer data that could be used to the
company’s competitive disadvantage. See
Apple, 727 F.3d at 1228.
|
113-15 (Exhibit F)
|
Identifies customers targeted by Johnstech and
provides financial information that could be used
by others to disadvantage JFM.
|
Granted. The customer information qualifies as
trade secrets and the redactions are narrowly
tailored to seal just this information. See In
re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569.
|
113-16 (Exhibit G)
|
Confidentiality assertion withdrawn
|
Denied.
|
113-17 to 113-21 (Exhibit I)
|
Expert report with nonpublic financial information
about JFM’s sales and profits related to
specific customers. JFM seeks to seal certain
redacted portions of the report as shown in Dkt.
No. 114-2, and Schedule and Appendix 1 to the
report in their entirety. JFM does not seek to seal
the report’s attachments. Dkt. No. 114
¶¶ 6-10.
|
Granted in part. Sealed to the extent it contains
detailed sales information for customers that could
be used to the company’s competitive
disadvantage. See Apple, 727 F.3d at 1228.
The request to seal redacted portions in Dkt. No.
114-2, and Schedule and Appendix 1, is granted. The
request is denied otherwise. JFM also states that
is withdrawing this Exhibit and will not rely upon
it further in this case.
|
113-22 (Exhibit J)
|
Confidentiality assertion withdrawn
|
Denied.
|
113-12 (Motion referencing these Exhibits)
|
No further response.
|
Granted in part. Granted to the extent that the
Court has permitted sealing of the Exhibits, and
denied otherwise.
|
B.
Johnstech’s Administrative Motion to Seal Documents
Filed in Opposition of JFM’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 116)
Johnstech
filed a motion to seal Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8A, 9, 14,
and 15 to its Opposition to JFM’s summary judgment
motion, and portions of its Opposition referencing them,
because the Exhibit materials were designated
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential -
Attorney’s Eyes Only” by JFM or third party IDI
under the protective order in this matter. Dkt. ...