Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 355]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal portions of its fifth

amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. Mot., ECF 355. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 372 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), 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.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 372 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the sealing motion relates to the filing of an amended complaint, which is more 

than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the 

compelling reasons standard. The Court previously sealed information in the portions sought to be 

redacted when ruling on Plaintiff’s motions to seal portions of its third and fourth amended 

complaints and exhibits in support thereof. ECF 156, 349. In fact, the information sought to be 

sealed in the fifth amended complaint is “identical (down to the page and line number) to the 

information the Court considered in its August 31, 2018 []Order” sealing the fourth amended 

complaint. Mot. at 1. Accordingly, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

355-8 Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED as 

to all 

highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions designated by 

Plaintiff contain technical proprietary 

confidential information as well as 

confidential financial and business 

information of Plaintiff, disclosure of which 

could harm Plaintiff. See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, 

ECF 355-1. Accord ECF 349.

As to the highlighted portions designated by 

Defendants as confidential, those portions 

contain Defendants’ confidential business and 

financial information, disclosure of which 

could harm Defendants. Resp. 1–2, ECF 358; 

Yaghmour Decl. ¶¶ 4–6, ECF 348-1.

355-9

355-10

355-11

355-12

355-13

Exhibit C to the Fifth

Amended Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information, 

disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See 

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Accord ECF 349.

355-14 Exhibit D to the 

Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information, 

disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See 

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 372 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

355-15

355-16

355-17

355-18

355-19

355-20

355-21

Exhibit H to the 

Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information, 

disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See 

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 355 is GRANTED. Because 

redacted versions of the documents have already been filed in the public record, no further action 

is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 372 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 4