Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02737/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02737-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELEC-TECH INTERNATIONAL CO., 

LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02737-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF THE 

MARCH 12, 2015 HEARING 

TRANSCRIPT UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 126]

On March 12, 2015, the parties in the above-captioned action appeared for oral argument 

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on March 25, Defendants provided notice that they 

intended to request redaction of the hearing transcript because the parties and Court discussed at 

the hearing information that had been filed under seal. See ECF 124. Before the Court is 

Defendants’ motion to file eleven portions of the hearing transcript under seal:

Document Portion of Document Sought to Be Sealed

Hearing Transcript 24:19-23

Hearing Transcript 27:3-14

Hearing Transcript 33-10-24

Hearing Transcript 34:1-6

Hearing Transcript 34:7-15

Hearing Transcript 34:16-36:22

Hearing Transcript 37:3-24

Hearing Transcript 38:9-40:7

Hearing Transcript 47:18-52:1

Hearing Transcript 52:19-54:22

Hearing Transcript 58:11-60:1

Plaintiffs oppose the sealing request, arguing that the redaction requests are overbroad and discuss 

mostly information that is already a part of the public record. For the reasons below, the Court 

disagrees with Plaintiffs and GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

Case 5:14-cv-02737-BLF Document 135 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling 

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which 

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of a 

public hearing transcript must meet the “compelling reasons” standard.

Defendants argue that the portions of the transcript they seek to seal “reveal or reflect 

information derived from exhibits previously ordered to be filed under seal,” Mot. at 1, 

referencing this Court’s February 10, 2015 Order sealing various exhibits submitted with 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Sealing Order, ECF 98. Plaintiffs make several arguments in 

response. First, Plaintiffs argue that the information Defendants seek to seal is not the confidential 

information sealed by the Court, but rather includes non-confidential information derived from 

those exhibits. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants cannot rely on the Court’s prior rulings or 

prior declarations submitted in support of their motions as the basis for the requested sealing. 

Third, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not identified any competitive harm that would result 

from the public disclosure of the specific information at issue. Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that the 

information Defendants seek to seal “consists largely of . . . publicly available information.”

Opp., ECF 129 at 3. The Court ultimately finds these arguments unpersuasive.1

First, the Court has reviewed the specific portions of the transcript Defendants seek to seal, 

and finds that the information contained within those portions of the transcript directly reference 

information contained within the exhibits the Court has previously ordered sealed. Specifically, 

the requested sealing discusses confidential contracts and contractual negotiations between ElecTech and Mr. Chen, one of the individual Defendants, including alleged monetary figures, dates, 

and the purported business relationship between them. The Court ordered sealed the exhibits 

 

1 Defendants moved for leave to file a reply brief, see ECF 131, and sought to file that reply brief 

under seal, ECF 132. This district’s Civil Local Rules do not contemplate the filing of a reply brief 

in support of a motion for administrative relief. See Civil L.R. 7-11(c) (“[A] Motion for 

Administrative Relief is deemed submitted for immediate determination without hearing on the 

day after the opposition is due.”). The Court DENIES Defendants’ request to file a reply brief in 

support of the motion. 

Case 5:14-cv-02737-BLF Document 135 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

which contained this information in its February 10, 2015 sealing order. Second, Defendants have 

already made a sufficient showing that there are compelling reasons to seal the information 

contained in those sealed exhibits, through the Declaration of Eva Chan submitted alongside its 

motion to seal the exhibits. The Court has already found that this information meets Phillips’

standard for sealing. See ECF 98 at 2-4. This Chan Declaration also identifies the competitive 

harm that Defendants would suffer were this information made publicly available. See generally 

Chan Decl., ECF 97. Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants are seeking to 

seal mostly publicly available information. Defendants have narrowly identified the portions of the 

transcript they seek to seal – the proposed redactions only encompass as much information in the 

transcript as necessary to keep this information about monetary figures, the contract terms, and the

relationship between the parties, from public view. As such, the Court also finds that the 

redactions are narrowly tailored consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). 

Plaintiffs insist that the information at hand here is a part of the public record of this case. 

However, the Court and parties discussed this factual information at oral argument in the context 

of the exhibits Defendants filed along with the motions to dismiss – exhibits the Court has found 

met Phillips’ compelling reasons standard for sealing. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

motion to seal, and ORDERS SEALED the following portions of the hearing transcript: 

Document Portion of Document Sought to Be Sealed

Hearing Transcript 24:19-23

Hearing Transcript 27:3-14

Hearing Transcript 33-10-24

Hearing Transcript 34:1-6

Hearing Transcript 34:7-15

Hearing Transcript 34:16-36:22

Hearing Transcript 37:3-24

Hearing Transcript 38:9-40:7

Hearing Transcript 47:18-52:1

Hearing Transcript 52:19-54:22

Hearing Transcript 58:11-60:1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02737-BLF Document 135 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 3